A roundup of voter ID editorials

BOR has a nice roundup of editorials from state newspapers about the recent voter ID ruling by the Supreme Court and the sure-to-follow effort by the State Lege to pass a similar law here. For the most part, they get it (though as Vince noted, not all of them do). One in particular to highlight is the Lufkin Daily News, which makes the case against about as succinctly as one can:

There are plenty of real problems to tackle - including a severe shortage of prison guards, an alarmingly high drop-out rate among high school students and inadequate funding for highway maintenance and construction, to name just three.

Yes, yes, and yes. The nature of Texas' biennial Legislative season ensures that there are too many worthy (and unworthy) agenda items fighting for a very limited window of opportunity to become law. Time spent on voter ID legislation is time not spent - time that cannot be spent within the 20 weeks of the session - on real problems that should have a higher priority. That the Republican leadership in Texas will choose to put voter ID over more pressing matters like those named by the Lufkin paper tells you a lot about what they stand for. And I'll say it again, if that strikes you as a bad thing, you can do something about it. It's our choice, just as it's their choice.

The Speaker wars have begun

Last Friday the Statesman wrote a story about Capitol employees who earn a part-time wage but are listed as full-time and receive the same health insurance and pension benefits as full-time employees.

Capitol insiders say that hiring employees as full-time workers while paying them part-time salaries is a longstanding practice at the Legislature, a way to get benefits for workers who otherwise would not qualify for them.

It costs taxpayers a minimum of $284 a month for health insurance for a full-time worker, according to calculations from the Employees Retirement System of Texas. And it costs much more to pay higher retirement benefits that the additional years of service can bring.

Even so, some lawmakers argue that the practice is legal and that any questions about it are off-base. Under House rules, each lawmaker is allowed to hire whom they want on whatever schedule they want. Thirty-three of the House's approximately 700 employees make less than $600 a month -- the amount lawmakers earn, according to House payroll records for February.

House Speaker Tom Craddick said he has ordered the House General Investigating and Ethics Committee and the state attorney general to look into the practice. Last week, subpoenas went to House officials for personnel records as part of a preliminary investigation by the Travis County district attorney's office.

"If some legislators are paying employees with taxpayer dollars who are performing little or no work, that is an egregious misuse of state money," Craddick said in a statement to the American-Statesman. "It must be stopped immediately and with full restitution made."

Lawmakers who have made such hires defend them, saying it is difficult to hire good workers for a part-time Legislature, which meets only five months every other year. Furthermore, they said, they have limited budgets with which to hire professional staff.

"That was part of the discussion when I hired him," Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, said of his deal with Zbranek. " 'I can't pay you too much. It's just $300 a month. The insurance and benefits make up a little more.' "

At least one lawmaker chalked up the inquiries to House politics, a charge Craddick's office denies.

Rep. Byron Cook, R-Corsicana, who hired Fazio, challenged Craddick's leadership a year ago as part of a power play that continues now with several announced candidates to unseat him. The issues concerning the employees are likely to fuel that dispute.

"If there's a target here, it's me because of the issues I've had with the leadership," Cook said, referring to Craddick. " This is generated by one source and one source only, and that has to have come in a whisper from the speaker's office.

"I have nothing to hide."

Other lawmakers said the blame rests with House administration officials.

"If there was anything wrong ... the House Administration Committee should have told me. They review everything we do," said Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco, who has three full-time, low-paid workers on his staff, including Wise. Dunnam also said he hired former state Rep. Dale Tillery in a similar case several years ago.

But Rep. Tony Goolsby, R-Dallas, who chairs the House Administration Committee, which oversees personnel issues, said lawmakers -- not his committee or House officials -- are responsible for running their offices according to state rules.

"That's up to them," he said. "That's the way the rules are written at present."

In case it's not clear from this excerpt, all of the lawmakers cited for this practice are opponents of House Speaker Tom Craddick, whose letter to the Statesman led to the article. This has, not surprisingly, caused a huge fight to break out. Phillip Martin, who worked as a House staffer in 2007, gives some context:

1. There's nothing illegal or unethical about any of this. All hires of House employees are public record. The Speaker's office -- though they deny it -- receives copies of each and every one of these hires. This practice has been long-standing and well understood; for Craddick to feign surprise is total crap.

2. There's nothing fiscally irresponsible about any of this. The $284 monthly cost of paying for health benefits for these hires doesn't amount to squat in the face of a $10-billion surplus. And considering that the children of state employees -- including Craddick's own daughter -- also receive health benefits, then I don't see any monetary significance to this alleged "revelation."

3. Craddick is responsible for the oversight of all House employees. Moreover, the Speaker ultimately oversees the office of House Administration -- at least, if he wants to claim responsibility that Denise Davis was an employee of the Speaker's office, then the same thing applies to the employees in the Payroll and Personnel department of House Administration. Either Craddick is responsible for this, or he's not. Or, he's just a political hypocrite waging war because...I don't even know why.

4. Staffers are paid meager wages. Like all state employees (except State Senate staffers), House staffers barely get paid what they deserve. They accept 50-70% of their "market value" in order to help serve the people of Texas, and part-time workers will accept even less. Craddick and Mike Ward may have cherry-picked some admittedly extreme examples, but there are dozens more who are hard-working, barely getting-by staffers just trying to help out. Waging war on them is going to backfire.

The obviously political nature of Craddick's actions is laid out clearly by Harvey Kronberg:

In his press release on May 2, General Investigating Committee Chairman Larry Phillips said, "On April 7, 2008, Speaker Tom Craddick's office notified the House General & Investigating Committee..."

Three weeks later, the Speaker's office apparently formally notified the three members referred to the General Investigating Committee of their problem with an Austin American Statesman story by Mike Ward.

The speaker's office apparently elected to ignore the more traditional House practice of notifying members about possible improprieties and offering the members an opportunity to cure any problems. Instead, these "issues" that Phillips knew about in early April went public in a May news story along with referrals to the Travis County District Attorney's office.

We have asked the Speaker's office if they can cite any precedent where House resources were used by a Speaker to publicly damage sitting House members. Development of this story required co-ordination between the House Business Office, House Accounting and possibly even the Legislature's law firm, the Legislative Council.

Kronberg got a reply that didn't actually address the question, which he subsequently published. He continues:

It appears that Chairman Goolsby has also taken some liberties with "part time" employees.

For instance, lobbyist Jennifer Shelley Rodriguez appears as a full time employee on Goolsby's Monthly Financial Statement from January to March of 2004. In January and February, her full time status earned her $500 a month. In March, she pulled down only $326.09. Rodriguez, the daughter of former Senator and current lobbyist Dan Shelley appears to have been a registered lobbyist in 2004 with at least 14 clients.

Again, according to the Monthly Financial Statement received by each House member, another full time employee making $500/month was Jennifer Fein. She held this status from September 2005 to January 2006.

In 2003, before SB1370 was passed, Goolsby had Eric Goldberg as a full time $500 month employee from January 20, 2003 to May 10 of the same year.

And finally, Ernest Stromberger, former executive director of Independent Insurance Agents of America shows up for 20 hours a week from December 2, 2002 to January 8, 2003.

We identified these issues and requested comment from Goolsby but had received none as of press time.

The point is not that Tony Goolsby did anything malevolent. The point is that if the chair of House Administration did not know he was acting improperly according to the Speaker's standards, it is silly to presume that members submitting their vouchers to him for approval would know they were doing anything improper.

Frankly, it is doubtful whether most of Mr. Craddick's leadership team can survive the same coordinated scrutiny directed towards Dunnam, Eiland, Cook and Coleman. If their cases are to be referred to the General Investigating Committee and the Travis County District Attorney, then so should Goolsby and other names that are already finding their way to this observer.

The Lone Star Project has more on Goolsby's part-time-pay, full-time-benefit hires, and QR has a letter from Eiland to Goolsby that asks some pointed questions. For instance:

Among myriad other issues, he pointed out that no mechanism is in place to log workers' hours and with their bosses, i.e. the lawmakers, often away from the Capitol, Eiland wondered how staffers' hours would be verified. Would staffers be forced to punch a time clock or swipe a badge when they enter the Capitol parking garage, he asked? How was lunch to be treated?

Another problem is that Capitol staffers often have uneven work demands throughout the year, Eiland wrote. During session, staffers often rack up well more than 40 hours a week. Would enforcement of a 40-hour week extend to creating a comp time system to account for the overtime accrued, he asked?

So anyway. Consider this all to be the opening salvos of the 2009 fight over the Speakership. If you thought 2007 was ugly, just wait. And as always, if you want to have an effect on the outcome of the Speaker's race, please consider donating to TexBlog PAC. Thanks very much.

Strip clubs ask again for a halt to the new fee

The state's strip clubs had thought they'd won an injunction against the $5/person fees imposed by HB1751, but that victory was short-lived when the Attorney General ruled that the fee was still in place while the state appealed the ruling. Now they're trying their luck with the Supreme Court.

An association representing strip clubs asked the Texas Supreme Court on Monday to stop the state from collecting a new fee that a trial court has ruled unconstitutional.

The state has already received $3.3 million in payments from the clubs in their initial quarterly payments due last month.

The emergency petition is designed to prevent clubs from having to remit the fee while the state appeals a March ruling from a Travis County state district judge.

The Texas Entertainment Association has attempted to stop collection of the fee, arguing that some clubs would be forced into closure by the expense. The group was turned down last month by the Third Court of Appeals.

In the ruling on the constitutionality, a judge said the $5-per-patron fee is unconstitutional because the state failed to link the First Amendment-protected activity to the programs being funded by the tax. He halted collection of the tax at that time, but his ruling was automatically stayed when the state appealed.

OK then. We'll get this all sorted eventually.

Where the voter ID battle goes from here

After yesterday's Supreme Court ruling, voter ID was the hot topic among legislators.

"That's very encouraging for those of us who worked so long and hard on that," said state Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell, lead author of a voter ID bill last year. "It has to help those of us who want to see our election process be protected so that only those who are qualified are able to vote."

The legislation passed the Texas House but failed in the Senate, where 11 members united to block the bill from consideration.

And the same would happen next year if a similar voter ID bill reaches the Senate, several Democratic members warned Monday.

"Just because the court decision indicates that it's legal doesn't mean that it's right," said Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston. "The Supreme Court doesn't have a vote in the Texas Legislature."

Gallegos risked his recovery from a liver transplant last spring by remaining in the Capitol and providing the decisive vote in blocking the bill. Senate rules allow 11 members to block legislation they consider objectionable, and Democrats needed Gallegos' presence.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Senate Republicans who wanted the voter ID bill almost got their way on a roll-call vote when Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, was out with the flu. But Uresti rushed into the Senate chamber from a nearby apartment just moments before Dewhurst called his name.

Eye on Williamson, who links to other stories and reactions to the ruling, suggests that electing Joe Jaworski and Wendy Davis to the Senate would help prevent the 2009 edition of a voter ID bill passing out of the Lege. While I wholeheartedly agree with his prescription, I fear that Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, in his zeal to provide red meat for Republican primary voters in 2010, will find a way to bypass the two-thirds rule and force this through somehow. Frankly, had it not been for the extraordinary circumstances last year, I think he'd have succeeded then. To me, the best line of defense for 2009 is ensuring that a Democrat is the Speaker of the House, because in that case, we won't have Leo Berman chairing the Elections committee, and any voter ID bills that get filed ought to get strangled in the crib. You know what to do to help make that happen.

I'm not sure if I should be comforted or alarmed by this:

Gallegos and other Democrats did say they would consider an identification requirement as part of a package that made voting easier -- such as allowing people to register on the same day they vote.

"That would definitely be a plus for me," Gallegos said.

The 2007 Republican bill's author says "maybe" to the idea of same-day voter registration.

"It's possible that down the road that we will go toward that," Brown said.

"There are some things that have to be clarified in our process before we could go to that. I don't have a problem with one-day registration and voting so long as we have assurance that we can know that those people are not voting in other places," she said.

As always, the devil is in the details. Same day registration would be nice, but not nearly enough in my book. I've said before and I'll say again, the minimum requirement for me includes not just providing photo IDs for free to anyone who needs them, but actively identifying and tracking down those people so they can be sure of receiving their IDs if they want them. I can live with photo ID as a requirement if and only if it's not an obstacle. And one more thing:

State Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio, said the discussion should begin with an assessment of the election system.

"Public policymaking should begin with identifying real problems," Villarreal said. "What we know is that the advocates of voter ID have not been able to bring forth evidence demonstrating that there is real fraud happening in the voting polls."

An honest assessment of absentee voting problems, which would include a critical look at the actions and inactions of our Attorney General, and possible remedies for them, would also be a requirement for me. Let's be sure there's an actual problem for us to claim to be fixing.

The Lege and immigration

Don't say you weren't warned about this.

Conservative Texas legislators made it clear Monday that they'll again push for strict state laws to crack down on illegal immigration when lawmakers convene in January.

A chief area they're likely to concentrate on is encouraging local police departments to work with U.S. officials to enforce federal immigration laws, which the House State Affairs Committee is studying.

Texas lawmakers last year provided about $110 million in border security money for state and local law enforcement but did not - despite some initial proposals - require local officials to enforce immigration laws.

Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, told the committee that he wants to see legislative proposals in 2009 requiring voters to show photo identification to prove their citizenship, penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants, and paying for local law enforcement to train officers to enforce federal immigration laws.

As Vince notes, many similar bills were filed during the 80th Lege, but fortunately a lot of them got derailed before they made it to the floor. The best way to make sure that happens again is to make sure that jokers like Leo Berman aren't chairing the committees that consider such bills, and the best way to make sure that happens is to elect a Democratic majority to the House. It's pretty simple, actually. South Texas Chisme and Dos Centavos have more.

Strip clubs speak about the fee

I received the following press release concerning the letter sent by the Comptroller to Texas strip clubs that they had to pay the $5-per-person fee despite the injunction that was entered against it.

The Texas Entertainment Association (TEA) announced this morning that adult cabarets across the state received notification last week from the Texas Comptroller that controversial, industry-wide $5 admittance taxes are due today. The state's surprise notification comes in the wake of the 53rd District Court's March 28 ruling that the taxes represent an invalid, unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights.

In its judgment, an Austin judge specifically ordered that the, "Defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from assessing or collecting the tax imposed by sections 47.051-.056." The Texas Attorney General's Office filed an appeal on April 7, and in letters issued to adult cabaret businesses across the state, the Comptroller's Office states that its appeal suspends both the Court's judgment and injunction.

Angelina Spencer, executive director of the Association of Club Executives, a nationwide organization of which the Texas Entertainment Association is a chapter, issued a statement on behalf of all the club owners in the TEA warning that businesses may be forced to close and that workers may lose their jobs due to this violation of the club's First Amendment rights. In addition, she noted that if the state can set aside the U.S. Constitution by filing an appeal, other businesses may soon find themselves in the same situation:

"The Texas Attorney General and Comptroller have made a poor decision, attempting to collect a tax from Texas businesses that has already been determined in court to be unconstitutional. Now, based solely on the fact that the state has filed an appeal, the Comptroller's Office has notified these businesses that the illegal tax must be paid today," she said.

"Cabaret owners may be forced to shut down. In these economically tough times, hard-working taxpayers employed by these legal businesses deserve better than being forced out of gainful employment by elected officials seeking to impose a patently unconstitutional law on an unpopular industry for the purposes of political gain.

"This is a terrible precedent for all sides and should be of concern to all business owners. The bottom line is that this is a narrowly targeted and unconstitutional tax on legal but politically unpopular businesses. The law affects approximately 165 cabarets in Texas. That means it could happen to anyone when political winds shift. The definition of what a 'deserving cause' is, and who is a good target for a narrow tax is, may change also. Our only protection is the U.S. Constitution and our courts.

"TEA attorneys testified before the legislative committee that the tax was unconstitutional. Now the court has confirmed it. All our elected leaders are sworn to uphold the Constitution. The right thing to do is obey the court's injunction until the appeal is decided and find another way to fund these worthy, but unrelated causes."

You can see a copy of the demand letter here (Word doc). According to an FAQ that was included with that file, here's the answer to the question "Have the clubs been collecting this fee?"

We cannot speak for all our members. Many clubs have, but there is confusion among our members as to how the fee is meant to be collected. If a patron enters, leaves and returns in a short amount of time, do we assess the fee twice? If the patron must stand outside to comply with smoking laws, do we charge him every time?

I have nothing to do with the Comptroller's office, but I'd say the answer to those questions is No, unless perhaps it's the club's policy to make these customers pay the cover charge each time the re-enter. I hope for the clubs' sake that their legal arguments in court are a bit sharper than that.

In the meantime, the clubs now have something else to worry about.

The state needs more robust laws to quickly shut down strip clubs and bars where minors are found performing, Attorney General Greg Abbott said today.

Addressing a state House of Representatives committee on licensing, Mr. Abbott recommended five ways to broaden laws governing sexually oriented businesses and to gather more information about who is working in them.

The hearing came on the heels of the Dallas City Council's unanimous decision last week to tighten city ordinances after police discovered evidence that a 12-year-old girl danced nude in a Northwest Dallas club last year.

Though it is already against the law to sexually exploit a child, state and city officials have been looking for ways to shut down or sanction adult businesses more quickly.

[...]

State Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) said the state needs to exercise more oversight of adult businesses at a time when his northwest Dallas district feels besieged by crimes involving the exploitation of girls.

"What we're seeking to do today is bring the state and the cities closer together in a coordinated fashion ...to deal with a lot of the rogue operators. For too long we have not had the requisite sense of outrage," he said.

As I said before, it's not been a very good year for the strip clubs.

Strip clubs must still pay fees

Despite winning an injunction against HB1751, which assessed a $5-per-customer fee on strip clubs to pay for a sexual assault fund and other things, the fee must still be paid while the matter is still being litigated.

The state comptroller has sent a letter to strip clubs saying the fee is active and that the first reports and payments are due Monday. If they aren't sent in, a 5 percent penalty takes effect.

Strip clubs have vowed to keep fighting the fee.

"It's a grave injustice that the attorney general and the comptroller would use procedural court technicalities to continue to trample on the rights of these business owners," said attorney Stewart Whitehead, who represents the Texas Entertainment Association, which includes more than half the topless clubs in Texas.

Boy, between this and the setbacks in Houston, it sure has been a lousy year for the strip clubs, hasn't it?

Rep. Cohen responds to court ruling on HB1751

Rep. Ellen Cohen, author of HB1751, which assessed a $5 per-customer surcharge on strip clubs to fund a sex assault prevention fund among other things, sent out the following press release in response to the court ruling that declared the fee unconstitutional:

Representative Ellen Cohen held a press conference today issuing a statement regarding Judge Jenkins' ruling on House Bill 1751 otherwise known as the Adult Entertainment Fee. Joining Representative Cohen was Mica Mosbacher, a survivor and advocate of HB 1751 and Kelly Young a Vice-President of the Houston Area Women's Center.

"While we are discouraged by Judge Jenkins verdict, we are not disheartened and we are determined to move forward" said Representative Cohen. In the 2007 legislative session, the Governor and the Legislature provided overwhelming support for the Adult Entertainment Fee. Representative Cohen will work with her colleagues, the Attorney General and Comptroller of Public Accounts to refine HB 1751 in the next Legislative session.

In her remarks, Representative Cohen invited sexual assault advocates and hospitals to continue their support of this legislation and extended an invitation to the sexually oriented business industry to step forward and work with her towards a solution to the lack of sexual assault resources across the state. Mrs. Mosbacher pointed out during her remarks that "54 of the 254 counties in Texas or 20% of the state do not have any resources for sexual assault victims." This lack of resources is one of the primary reasons that Representative Cohen will be diligent in her efforts to continue her work on HB 1751 in the next legislative session.

The intention of HB 1751 is to provide funding for rape crisis centers statewide, research at the University of Texas at Austin Institute of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, prevention campaigns and equipment grants for sexual assault nurse examiners. Ms. Young remarked that in her day-to-day work of providing resources for victim survivors of sexual assault that "we can never do enough because every sexual crime is one too many and nearly 2 million adult Texans in our state have been sexually assaulted. This type of funding is critical and gives hope to victim survivors."

Representative Cohen added "what we must keep in mind is that we are talking about people. We need funds to educate, provide medical services and support research. These victim survivors deserve our best efforts and I promise them that we will do nothing less."

The AusChron has more on this. I think it's clear that Rep. Cohen's goal was and is a worthy one, and that it would be best if the Lege recognized that such things are better paid for in a straightforward manner from general revenue rather than this kind of limited fee. I hope this can be fixed in the next session.

The Bible class conundrum

This story is a good illustration of why bills like HB1287 should be left to languish in committee rather than get brought to the floor for passage.

Fiercely debated legislation last year to put a Bible course in public schools has landed in the hands of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott for an opinion on what it means.

And that's hardly a surprise, since state lawmakers couldn't agree on what the wording meant last May when they passed HB 1287, the so-called "Bible bill."

Just about everyone agrees a Bible course cannot be used to endorse, promote or disparage any faith and that the purpose of the class is to help students understand the Bible as literature.

But Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott has called on Abbott to referee one of the bill's most contentious points: Are public high schools required to offer a Bible course if at least 15 students request it?

The bill's author, Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, and Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, who carried the legislation in the Senate, emphatically contend it was intended to obligate school districts to offer the course in high schools if the 15-student threshold is met.

"If a certain number of students request it, yes, they must do it. I don't think if a group gets together and says, 'Yes, we want to do this,' the school system should have to say, 'No, you can't,' " Estes said.

Chisum also referred to a separate State Board of Education rule requiring school districts to offer courses if requested by 10 students.

But Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, an acknowledged expert on public education issues, said the mandatory provisions of the bill were removed before it passed.

"It's totally permissive," Hochberg said. "There is no course requirement. Under the rules of legislative construction, I don't know any other way to read it."

Here's the text of the bill, as enrolled. Feel free to make your own judgment.

House Public Education Chairman Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, circulated a memo last May clarifying several amendments to the bill, including one respecting local control "by giving school boards the right to decide" whether to offer the Bible course.

"What about 'local control' is confusing here?" said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which fought to keep the bill from being mandatory. "Chairman Eissler's memo makes it clear that the committee's amended bill left the decision to local schools to make.

"With so many priorities competing for education dollars, that would seem to make a lot of sense to most taxpayers," she continued.

That would seem pretty straightforward to me, but perhaps the people who really pushed this bill just aren't happy with that explanation. And so we'll wait six months for the Attorney General to tell us what he thinks. In the meantime, there's another issue to ponder:

Another uncertainty hovering over the Bible bill is the absence of funding for the required teacher training, estimated by the Texas Education Agency to cost $250,000 the first year, $500,000 the second year and $50,000 annually after that.

"Due to that lack of funding ... the agency is not developing that training," Scott said in his letter to Abbott.

Proper training for a Bible course taught in public schools is imperative, Hochberg said.

"Teaching biblical history separately from preaching the Bible requires thought and planning and knowledge, particularly in an environment where you are attempting to teach to people with very different views on religion," Hochberg said.

The notion that lawmakers did not fund the training requirement baffles Chisum, who is not only the bill's author but also chairs the House Appropriations Committee that writes the state budget.

"We may not have had it specifically named in there for that specific (purpose) because there's no way we'd know how many people were going to need training," Chisum said.

Warren Chisum of all people knows fully well that unless funding is specifically designated for a purpose, it often doesn't get used for that purpose. And given the attitude the Lege has shown towards education funding lately, is it any surprise that the TEA isn't eager to divert a quarter million bucks to this speciality training if it can avoid it? What a mess. Vince has more.

Craddick's fishing trip

Okay, Postcards and Trail Blazers are blogging about a story that slipped past my attention last year but is back in the news now and which involves Speaker Craddick. Let's go to Postcards for an initial description:

A lawsuit over an Amazon fishing trip, which was canceled in 2006, should be a fish tale and not a political whopper, Speaker Tom Craddick and Bill Messer are arguing in a court document.

The lawsuit by the tour operator, Amazon Tours, alleged that Craddick and Messer were acting "as bullies, using the power of the Speaker's office" to get their deposits returned instead of rescheduling their trip, which had been canceled because of high waters. Each had given a $1,900 deposit.

Lawyers for the two politicos are seeking a protective order to limit the topic and duration of their depositions, which are scheduled for later this month, and to ensure that their videotaped testimony isn't leaked to the news media.

The dispute surfaced in May 2007 as Craddick was fighting for his political life.

So, Craddick and his buddy Messer put down a deposit on an Amazon fishing trip that got cancelled, and they demanded their deposits back. That led to a lawsuit being filed against them, claiming that Craddick made threats to the travel agency. Here's the KVUE story from the time:

The suit, filed by Patrick Marsteller of Amazon Tours, Inc., says Craddick and Austin lobbyist Bill Messer paid the company for a fishing trip that was rescheduled. When high water on the Amazon made fishing conditions difficult, the company says it offered to reschedule the trip as a courtesy.

The suit goes on to say that many months later, Craddick and Messer refused to go on the trip and demanded a refund. Amazon Tours said contract terms wouldn't allow a refund.

Craddick and Messer then sent a letter threatening embarrassment to the travel agent's reputation.

"There are clearly exceptional circumstances, and therefore we demand a full refund to be made to each of us in order to avoid legal action or embarrassment to your reputation," wrote Craddick and Messer.

"The speaker, I guess, he felt the power given to him by the Speaker of the House (position) gave him the right to do this," said Marsteller.

And here's the DMN story:

Lawyer-lobbyist Bill Messer and Mr. Craddick sent a letter to Amazon demanding a refund for a fishing trip they said the company canceled and couldn't reschedule. The letter was on Mr. Messer's legal letterhead and was signed "Speaker Tom Craddick."

State ethics officials said their rules don't govern the use of titles, but Craddick opponents and the travel agent's attorney accused Mr. Craddick of throwing his weight around.

"It's the speaker of the House using the power and prestige of his office to gain an advantage,'" said Dallas lawyer Kevin Buchanan, who filed a lawsuit asking a judge to decide the dispute. "It's not right. It's oppressive."

Mr. Craddick's attorney, Roy Minton, said he saw nothing unusual about the letter or the speaker's use of his title in signing it. Elected officials use their titles all the time in correspondence having nothing to do with state business, he said.

"I've been representing politicians for close to 50 years, and ... they all point out what their title is" in correspondence, he said. "I don't know why, but they all do that."

Normally, this sort of thing would be the kind of minor tiff over a few bucks that no one would much care about. Except that now that depositions are about to be taken, Craddick is asking for his statements to be kept hidden from the public. Here's Karen Brooks, explaining why Craddick's attorney filed this motion:

The reason, he argues, is that the attorney for the Dallas-based Amazon Tours, Kevin Buchanan, filed his case asking to be allowed to keep the deposit "for political reasons" and will probably ask a bunch of questions regarding speaker politics for the sole purpose of making them available to the media for quotes and future filet-ing in the press.

Which, who are we kidding, we'd totally quote from that deposition. That's why they're public. So people can read them. So we can report them. It's what we do.

Politically charged questions coming out in a time when the Speaker is fighting to keep his seat would no doubt be something he'd want to avoid.

[...]

The March 7, 2008 filing by Mr. Minton asks the court to seal the deposition and require that the questions be limited to the fishing trip, not the speaker's use of his office in general.

Elise Hu has more on this, including links to all the relevant documents. On the one hand, I can see the rationale for limiting the scope of the questions to Craddick. This is a dispute about a deposit, after all, so politics really isn't a part of it. On the other hand, the tour company says Craddick tried to intimidate them, and it makes sense that they'd want to demonstrate that such behavior is not unusual for Craddick, which means exploring his actions as Speaker. I kind of think Team Craddick has the better argument here, but as I'm not a lawyer and all, don't put too much faith in that judgment. I'll be very interested to see what the judge says.

Craddick's fate

While I don't quarrel with the basic premise of this Chron article that the fate of House Speaker Tom Craddick will largely be determined by the primaries, I do have a nit or two to pick.

"It's 50-50, roughly," said Craddick confidant and Capitol consultant Bill Miller. "I think it's going to be in play right through the fall election."

Kelly Fero, a Democratic campaign consultant, contends Craddick's fate largely will be cast by the election results in both the GOP and Democratic primaries.

"Craddick's future is all about March 4, and he's going to have to run the table," Fero said. "Every one of his allies is going to have to survive, and every one of the challengers is going to have to lose.

"And even then, his survival will depend on a few key allies having the political courage to stick with him."

I think Fero is overstating just a tad. There are only four Craddick Dems on the firing line, and of them I think only Kevin Bailey is in deep trouble. Nathan Macias on the Republican side is also likely to go, and maybe Phil King, if ParentPAC can maintain its magic. But Craddick is also playing offense, and he seems poised to score a win over Pat Haggerty in El Paso, though the Dems may make that a short-termed victory in November. He's also playing in several Democratic primaries, some of which are not listed in this story's sidebar: HD37 (Rene Oliveira), HD77 (Paul Moreno, whose opponent seems to be eminently suited for life as a Craddick D), HD147 (Garnet Coleman), and HD148 (Jessica Farrar). I think Craddick just needs to break even to still be in contention next session.

That said, note that the underlying assumption in this story is that Craddick won't make up enough ground in November to make up for his losses so far.

A combination of GOP defections, retirements and key primary races imperil his re-election for speaker.

Craddick survived January 2007's challenge on an 80-68 vote.

He has since lost at least eight supporters -- dropping his likely votes to about 72. It takes at least 76 votes to win the speaker's job.

Republicans have lost a net nine seats since Craddick took over and would lose control of the House if Democrats pick up five more in the November election.

The 2008 election cycle "is shaping up to be a good Democratic year, so it is clearly possible that the Democrats pick up the seats they need to take the House," said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. "Even if they fall a couple of seats short, Craddick is toast."

"Only if Republicans expand their majority in the House and Speaker Craddick is credited with that success does he hold his speakership. The latter scenario seems unlikely," Jillson said.

All things being equal, there are more vulnerable Democratic seats this year than there are Republican ones, as the Democrats have done an excellent job in recent years winning in swing districts. But I think it's clear that all things are far from equal this year, and it's a question of how many seats the Dems can pick up. If that really is the case, then what happens this month almost doesn't matter for Craddick and his hold on the Speakership. I'm certainly not going to operate on that assumption, because I know Tom Craddick will never surrender, but it's hard not to see this as his last stand. One can only hope, that's for sure.

Strip club fee lawsuit update

Here's an update on the lawsuit that was filed against the $5-per-customer strip club fee that the Lege passed last session for a sexual assault prevention fund.

A new $5-per-patron fee the state is charging strip clubs is really a tax and should be declared unconstitutional, a lawyer for the clubs argued in court Tuesday.

"They are simply taking money from my clients and funding other purposes," said Stewart Whitehead.

[...]

Whitehead, said a fee must be related to regulation, and the state is not using the fee to "abate an alleged nuisance" or benefit the industry.

He said the sponsor of the law enacting the fee, Rep. Ellen Cohen, D-Houston, said at a committee hearing that there was no link between the clubs and sexual assaults.

The fee really is an occupation tax, Whitehead said, and the Texas Constitution requires that one-fourth of occupation tax revenue be used to fund public schools.

Christine Monzingo, an assistant attorney general, said the Legislature has authority to charge a fee to a sexually exploitative industry. Even if the $5 charge is an occupation tax, she said, the state comptroller has authority to set aside a quarter of the revenue for education. She urged denial of the motion.

In December, another Travis County judge denied a temporary injunction to prevent the tax from being assessed.

The suit was filed in December. I said at the time I didn't think this was going to get anywhere, and I still think that. Of course, I also didn't think the bill requiring the surcharge would make it through the Lege, so take my assessment with an appropriate amount of salt.

One small piece of good news on voter ID

There was one bit of news, from this Texas Politics blog post, about last week's VoterIDPalooza hearings that offers a small ray of hope:

A Texas legislative subcommittee will look for solutions intended to reduce fraud involving mail-in, or absentee voter ballots.

Most experts agree that problems exist with those ballots, which photo ID requirements would not fix.

House Elections Chairman Leo Berman, R-Tyler, appointed Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, to chair a three-member subcommittee, which has been instructed to report back to his full committee in six months.

I'm glad to finally see some small recognition that absentee balloting, which needless to say is completely outside the scope of the photo ID debate, is the place where vote fraud really happens. There's nobody better than Rafael Anchia to look into that, too. This may just be cover for whatever voter ID bill the Republicans try to cram through the Lege next year, but it's still good that the issue is being studied. Maybe it'll help everyone get a little perspective on where the problems really are.

Elsewhere, Eye on Williamson points to this Harvey Kronberg op-ed, in which he finds his dad's old poll tax receipts, and sums up the current situation succinctly:

Advocates of photo ID claim we currently suffer massive election fraud.

And pretty much everyone does agree there is a problem with mail-in ballot fraud and voter registration lists that include non-citizens and the dead.

But a photo ID wouldn't deal with those frauds.

The only problem a photo ID solves is someone impersonating a voter at a polling place, something that every one agrees is all but non-existent.

While race and illegal immigrants may be a subtext of the argument in 2008, it's really mostly about partisan advantage.

And finally, Martin Frost writes that the photo ID requirement in voter ID laws may be even more pernicious than it first appears:

An Indiana law imposing such a requirement has been challenged, and its fate will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that was argued before the court on Jan. 9.

[...]

This case is intertwined with an unpopular law passed by Congress several years ago called "Real ID," which requires states to dramatically increase the documentation required to obtain a driver's license.

A number of states are resisting implementation of this new law because it is an "unfunded mandate" that would force states to spend millions of dollars of their own tax revenue (no federal funds provided) to comply with its provisions.

In those states that are complying, citizens are finding it much harder to obtain a driver's license, thus further reducing the pool of individuals who will have the type of state ID required to vote by laws like the one being challenged in the Supreme Court.

According to the brief submitted to the Supreme Court by the individuals challenging the constitutionality of this Indiana law, the statute clearly is aimed straight at these groups.

The brief notes that "about 12 percent of voting-age Americans lack a driver's license.

"And about 11 percent of voting-age United States citizens -- more than 21 million individuals -- lack any form of current government-issued photo ID.

"That 11 percent figure grows to 15 percent for voting-age citizens earning less than $35,000 per year, 18 percent for citizens at least 65 years old and 25 percent for African-American voting-age citizens."

This is what is called in the law a "disparate effect."

We can only hope the Supreme Court sees it that way.

UPDATE: Forgot to link to the AusChron's coverage of the voter ID hearings, which among other things show Anchia taking on Paul Bettencourt's bamboozlements. And via BOR, some charges about selective enforcement of absentee ballot laws have been leveled against AG Greg Abbott.

House Elections Chairman Leo Berman, R-Tyler said he plans to ask Attorney General Greg Abbott to respond to allegations of partisan favoritism presented to his committee by Gerald Hebert, head of litigation at the Campaign Legal Center.

Hebert complained to Berman's committee last week that Abbott has prosecuted Texans "who appear to have done little more than mistakenly help senior citizens by delivering already completed and sealed ballots to the post office or an elections administrative office."

Of 13 voter fraud-related indictments, virtually all are African Americans or Hispanic senior citizens, Hebert noted.

He told the committee: "What is especially troubling is that while Greg Abbott's office has prosecuted minority seniors for simply mailing ballots, he has not prosecuted anyone on the other side of the aisle for what appear to be open and shut cases of real voter fraud."

Hebert told the committee about alleged voter fraud in heavily Republican Highland Park involving the mishandling of over 100 ballots and a memo from local prosecutors calling on Abbott to investigate the 2005 complaint. He explained that the attorney general's office handed off the complaint to the Texas secretary of state "for evaluation of as potential criminal prosecution."

He called that "a stalling tactic" because it is the AG's office that evaluates criminal prosecution.

Nothing has happened, according to Hebert.

[...]

Hebert is a former federal prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice. He also is an attorney in a pending lawsuit challenging several Texas laws passed in 2003, including one that makes it a crime to possess a mail-in ballot of another person. And he also represented Democrats who fought the redistricting efforts of GOP leaders in 2003.

Hebert told Berman's committee:

"One can only conclude that Greg Abbott is using the official resources of the State of Texas to relentlessly pursue and prosecute minorities and Democrats who may have unknowingly violated a narrow, flawed and controversial provision in Texas law. None of the 10 persons prosecuted have been charged with or admitted to defrauding a single voter.

"At the same time, Abbott's office has failed to seek prosecution of a single Republican or any individual involved with Republican election activities, even after being provided clear evidence that Republican office holders and Republican election officials engaged in improper activities that may have 100 or more ballots."

Hebert said, "There is a fraud being perpetrated on Texas voters, but it's not what you think. It is being perpetrated on Texas votes by Attorney General Greg Abbott, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, and others who claim that voter fraud in Texas has reached epidemic proportions. Their false and unsubstantiated claims are the real fraud."

Pretty heavy stuff. We'll see what Abbott has to say for himself.

Puente to step down

Retiring Craddick D Rep. Robert Puente is going to vacate his seat early.

State Rep. Robert Puente will leave office Friday, he said in a letter submitted this morning to Gov. Rick Perry.

Puente, dean of the Bexar County legislative delegation, said he's urging the governor to call a special election to fill his District 119 seat in May.

In October, the San Antonio Democrat announced his decision to retire from the Legislature, saying he wouldn't seek his ninth full term this year. That opened the way for Democrat Roland Gutierrez.

Gutierrez stepped down from the City Council in December to run for Puente's seat. As it turned out, he was the only taker; no one else -- Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or independent -- filed to compete in Texas House District 119.

Puente said his decision to leave office early stemmed from talks with Gutierrez.

"He's the heir apparent, he's going to be the next state representative," Puente said. "The more we talked about it, the more it became apparent that I should resign, let him take over early and hopefully get some seniority built up."

Seems wasteful to hold a special election for a seat that isn't contested in November, but the seniority rationale does make some sense. I doubt Governor Perry cares about giving someone like Roland Gutierrez a leg up, but I suppose you never know.

Janek to leave Senate in June

State Sen. Kyle Janek has made official his departure from the Senate.

Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, announced today that he was resigning his Senate seat, effective June 2, to spend more time with his family.

The resignation date, he acknowledged, is different from the March 10 timetable he gave Senate colleagues in a conference phone call on Monday.

He said he prolonged his departure to give more potential candidates time to consider a race to succeed him and to give voters in District 17 more time to consider their options.

A March 10 resignation would have allowed Gov. Rick Perry to schedule a special election on May 10 to fill out the remainder of Janek's term, which expires in January 2011.

A June 2 resignation means the governor could either set the special election on the same day as the November general election, which is the next uniform election date, or declare an emergency and set a special election sometime after June 2.

In other cases like this, Governor Perry has consistently picked election dates that best served whatever political purpose needed serving, so who knows what he'll do. If he thinks the GOP has better odds of retaining the seat with a standalone election, he'll declare an emergency. If not, he'll let it do till November.

Former Harris County Republican Chairman Gary Polland, state Rep.Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land, and state Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, have said they will consider a Senate race.

Hochberg would be an exciting candidate, partly because it'd be great to see him become more influential, and partly because his need to step down to run for the Senate would mean that his fairly swingy seat would go from being uncontested this year to hotly contested as an open seat pickup opportunity for the GOP. The part of me that envisions Senator Hochberg wants him to run. The part of me that imagines him losing, and his House seat falling to the GOP wants him to stay put. I'm also curious to know what other possible Dems there may be for this seat.

Janek said sportscaster and former Houston Oilers football player Spencer Tillman of Sugar Land, who he had been considering a race, is out of the running because he doesn't live in the district.

So much for Burka's teaser, though honestly it's unclear to me why this would be a big deal, given how loosely the residency requirement is interpreted for most other members. Maybe he doesn't have a relative who lives in the district whose house he could claim as his own.

(On a side note, I guess this means Tillman is a Republican. Alas.)

So. Who do you want to see run - or not run - to fill this seat?

State Sen. Kyle Janek to resign

This was not unexpected.

Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, who moved his family to Austin several months ago, will announce Tuesday that he is resigning from the Senate in mid-term on March 10.

There has been speculation for several months that Janek, an anesthesiologist, wouldn't complete his current four-year term, and it increased when he enrolled his young sons in an Austin school last fall.

Janek wouldn't confirm his plans, other than to say will have a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday.

I had a conference call with some of my Senate colleagues about 45 minutes ago,'' he said. "I discussed my future with them, and I'm going to lay it all bare tomorrow at a press conference.''

Other sources, however, confirmed his pending resignation.

Janek, who sold his house in Houston, has been living in a rental house in Galveston, within his district, and commuting to a new home he and his family purchased in Austin last year.

Fort Bend Now and The Professors, who speculate about possible Republican successors (may I just say "UGH!" to the idea of Sen. Dennis Bonnen?), have more. I presume, though I haven't consulted the election code yet, that there would need to be a special election this year to replace him; it'll be interesting to see if Gov. Perry tries to shoehorn it into May, or waits till November. Janek's district is somewhat purple (Excel spreadsheet), though for it to be competitive for a Democrat, he or she would need to start out with a chunk of money and be able to raise a lot more fast. We'll see what happens.

UPDATE: Greg has more, and Burka has an interesting tease.

Notes from the voter ID hearing on Friday

Eye on Williamson has a good roundup of media coverage from Friday's voter ID hearings in Austin, to which I'd add this Karen Brooks post and these three Observer posts. I have two comments to add:

- The partisan nature of this really couldn't be clearer. I mean, the star witness called by Elections Committee chair Rep. Leo Berman (R, Tyler) was Texas GOP chair Tina Benkiser. This isn't about protecting the "integrity" of the vote, it's about making it harder for certain people, whom Tina Benkiser knows full well tend to vote Democratic, to cast a ballot. We know this because of the continued lack of evidence that fraud-by-impersonation is any kind of problem at all, by the studied indifference by the GOP leadership to what kind of problems may exist with absentee and vote-by-mail (both of which skew Republican, which means they're A-OK as far as Benkiser is concerned), and by the equally stark lack of interest in ensuring the integrity of our electronic voting systems. The continued focus on this one specific aspect of elections, and the obvious ways in which it would benefit Republicans at the expense of Democrats, tells the story.

- Interestingly, State Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R, Houston) let the curtain slip a bit in this comment:

"If five or 10 people cast votes fraudulently, that means something to me because every vote is sacred," Bohac said.

Compare that to this:

Texas has between 150,000 to 400,000 registered voters who have no form of government-issued photo identification, said Toby Moore, former project manager for the Commission on Federal Election Reform.

Bohac, who sounds to me to be conceding the point that fraud-by-impersonation is anything but common, is saying that he's prepared to disenfranchise up to 400,000 people in Texas in order to ensure that five cases of fraud-by-impersonation don't occur. The point about this being an extreme overreaction to a nonexistent problem could not be made more clearly than that.

The best way to make this issue go away is to get a Democratic majority in the House. If you're as tired of this crap as I am, your mission is clear. And if you need a little more inspiration, check out this Google video of State Sen. Mario Gallegos, the hero of the voter ID fight from last year, courtesy of the Lone Star Project.

One Man In Clear Lake Is Overseeing The Texas Ethics Commission

No, it's not the head of the Texas Ethics Commission, it's Clear Lake activist John Cobarruvias who has been the TEC watchdog for about a year and a half. Out of curiosity, he looked in the campaign spending habits of one officeholder. What he found was so astonishing, it caused him to look into the spending side of campaign finance reports of many other Texas legislators and state-wide officials.

Here's the deal. The Legislature passed laws, which the TEC is supposed to enforce, that are very clear - all expenditures made by the candidate or office holder are to be transparent. Credit card expenses have to be detailed as to vendor, description and date of purchase. Reimbursements to self or staff have to be spelled out. It's not enough to put on the report, "Dan Patrick, $5000, reimbursement." He would have to detail what he spent that $5000 on. Not to mention, you are not supposed to use your campaign cash for personal use.

KHOU did a story at 10 pm last night on Cobarruvias' efforts and the complete ineffectiveness and worthlessness of the Texas Ethics Commission. The story and video and up on their website.

The gist of the story is that if Cobarruvias had not taken it upon himself to look into the Ethics Commission - uncovering the several million dollars in violations over a two year period - and getting a team of activists to file complaints on the violators - all of the illegal activity would still be going on - the credit card expenditure problems, reimbursements to self and staff, and personal use of campaign cash.

You are wondering, isn't it the Ethics Commission job to audit campaign finance reports, assess fines on violators and enforce the laws? Well, they act like they can't audit reports. They'll tell you it is up to someone to file a complaint before they can look into an alleged violation. But, that is just not true. This from the Government Code dealing with the TEC:

§ 571.069. Review of Statements and Reports; Audits

(a) The commission shall review for facial compliance randomly selected statements and reports filed with the commission and may review any available documents. The commission shall return for resubmission with corrections or additional documentation a statement or report that does not, in the opinion of the commission, comply with the law requiring the statement or report.

One moment of hilarity from the KHOU story. Lee McGuire, the KHOU reporter, learned from the Ethics Commission that they had levied $700,000 in fines last year. Digging deeper, he discovered that all but $22,000 of that were fines assessed for candidates filing their reports late. Good on them, but the expectation is that officeholders and candidates are accountable for following ALL the ethics laws, not just filing on time.

The good news is that a lot of this mess has been cleared up. A review of the January 07 and July 07 campaign finance reports show that the word has gotten out that unless the laws are followed, you will have a complaint filed against you.

Someone explain to me why a state commission with a $2 million annual budget, has to count on a guy from Clear Lake to do their auditing work for them - for free?

Abbott rules for Craddick

You may recall that Attorney General Greg Abbott had been asked for an opinion on the matter of procedures for removing the Speaker of the House. Well, late last night, Abbott delivered it.

The Texas Constitution protects House Speaker Tom Craddick from moves by foes to "vacate the chair" and kick him out of his leadership position before his term is up, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said Friday.

They can still move to expel him from his legislative office as Midland's state representative with a two-thirds vote, or the House and Senate could impeach him, according to the opinion issued late Friday.

But only the Senate has the power to decide whether impeachment of the speaker would mean his removal - either from his leadership position or from office. The impeachment trial would be by the Senate.

Mr. Abbott declined to address questions over whether the speaker has "absolute authority," as Mr. Craddick claimed, to recognize or decline to recognize any member for any reason - on a vote to remove him from his leadership position, or on any other issue. The attorney general said it was not in his authority to address House rules matters.

[...]

In a strongly worded statement, Reps. Jim Keffer and Byron Cook, both Republicans who requested the opinion in June, slammed the opinion and said it "only reaffirms the adage: 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' "

"We strongly disagree with the unprecedented contention that the office of Speaker is a statewide officer. Furthermore, it is unprecedented to contend that the House Speaker is subject to removal by a vote of the Texas Senate," the statement said. "It now appears that the integrity of Texas Government is still at a critical crossroads. Enough is enough. The people of Texas need to let their local representatives know that they've had enough of Tom Craddick's one-man dictatorship."

Yes, according to our Attorney General, it takes the participation of the Senate to remove a Speaker of the House. Utterly ridiculous, yet completely typical of the Rick Perry/Tom Craddick school of governance. BOR has more, and I'm sure many others will follow.

Strip clubs sue over surcharge

Remember the strip club fee that passed the Lege this last spring? Well, a coalition of strip clubs in the state have now filed a lawsuit to block the law from being implemented.

The suit, filed Wednesday in Travis County, alleges that lawmakers violated club operators' constitutional right to free speech when they approved the surcharge last spring. Owners of topless bars have argued that the fee, designed to help victims of sexual assault, imposes a discriminatory tax on their businesses and unfairly links their patrons to rape.

And though officials from the Texas attorney general's office vowed to do whatever it takes to uphold the adult entertainment fee, government insiders acknowledged quietly that they may face an uphill battle.

A similar strip club fee endorsed by Gov. Rick Perry in 2004 - one that would've raised money for education - never made it into law after legislators voiced concerns that it was an inappropriate and unseemly stretch.

The bill's authors say they're not suggesting that people who go to strip clubs or adult-video stores walk out and commit sex crimes; they're simply seeking revenue for underfunded programs.

"Clearly we're disappointed by the lawsuit; we were really hoping this industry would see this as an opportunity to do something positive for the communities they're in," said Annette Burrhus-Clay, executive director of the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault. "We're going to fight it because we believe in the merits of our position."

The fee lawmakers passed this spring is expected to raise about $40 million each year, more than half of which would go toward sexual assault services. The rest would be used to provide health assistance to Texas' poorest residents.

But in the suit, filed against Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Comptroller Susan Combs, advocates for the adult entertainment industry argue the fee would amount to an unconstitutional tax on nude dancing, a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.

And they say the measure singles out strip clubs by not applying to all sexually oriented businesses. Nude modeling studios and adult video arcades aren't affected, they say.

"Exotic nude dancing is protected speech under the First Amendment," the lawsuit states. "It [the fee] singles out income derived from protected speech for a burden the state places on no other income."

I am not a lawyer, so as always, take the following with a grain of salt. The free-expression argument is interesting. I'm not sure if that would come down to whether the fee represents an undue burden - my layman's opinion is that it probably wouldn't - or if you just can't single out one particular form of expression for this kind of tax. The income argument seems specious to me - we're not taxing the dancers themselves, we're imposing a per-customer fee on the venues, which they can pay themselves, pass along to the customers, or some combination thereof. Now, a tax on lap dances, that I could see as singling out the dancers' incomes. This feels like a stretch to me. Finally, the issue with the fee not applying to other types of SOBs, well, I suppose if you can ban smoking in bars but leave an exception for cigar bars, then I'm not sure why you couldn't impose a fee on Treasures but not on the Adult Video Megaplex.

So, I'm a bit skeptical about the clubs' chances in this suit. I'm also a bit perplexed by the assertion that "government insiders" are worried.

But neither did state officials appear overly optimistic about their chances of fighting the legal challenge.

"Any time you get in a courtroom, there's a 50 percent chance you'll win, a 50 percent chance you'll lose," said Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, an attorney. "If we didn't do it right this time, that will tell us what we've got to do to get it right next time."

That's not exactly an assessment of the merits of the suit, is it? And Sen. West isn't a defendant, so he's not really going to be fighting this challenge anyway. Sure, anything can happen in a courtroom, but saying so doesn't help evaluate the state's odds of winning. Vince thinks the state will have it tough, however, so maybe I need to rethink this.

On a side note, as I mentioned in that previous link, does anyone know if the recent victories by the city of Houston over its strip clubs will affect the revenue estimate for this fee? It's not relevant to the issue at hand, I'm just curious.

One last thing:

A lawyer for the plaintiffs - the Texas Entertainment Association, which represents more than half of the topless clubs in the state, and Karpod, Inc., which operates a club in Amarillo - declined to comment on the suit.

Amarillo has a strip club in it? I never would have guessed.

Thanks for clarifying that, Tom

I don't know for sure how many Craddick Dems there are left in the Lege, but I hope those that remain, whether they face a primary challenger or not, read this article and answer a simple question.

As he seeks to retain his leadership post, House Speaker Tom Craddick is pounding home a partisan message in his public appearances that portrays Republican legislators who oppose him as aiding and abetting the Democrats.

In speeches to Republican gatherings and civic groups, Craddick characterizes himself as the keeper of GOP ideals in Austin and warns that efforts to prevent him from winning a fourth term are being driven by trial lawyers who want to undo lawsuit restrictions.

Craddick allies have sought primary election opponents for some Republicans who tried to oust him as speaker in this year's legislative session. And telephone surveys have tried to turn voter sentiment against them in their districts. Craddick denies participating in these efforts.

Because the speaker is elected by representatives in the 150-member House and few districts are competitive across party lines, both Democrats and Republicans are trying to determine the outcome of the next speaker's race by counting votes in the primaries.

Most think Craddick's best chance for winning re-election in 2009 rests with his supporters carrying Republican primaries in March.

"A divided Republican Party is a Democratic win," Craddick told a Republican gathering in Arlington earlier this fall, according to a report in The Dallas Morning News. "The Republican base knows what's best for this country."

Why in the world would you even consider supporting this guy? I don't get it. Maybe in 2003 or 2005 - maybe even in 2007 - I could see the argument for being on his team. But now, after all that's been said and done? I just don't get it.

Craddick D update

Phillip Martin has a useful chart listing the 15 Craddick Democrats from last session and giving an update as to their current status. The bottom line:

Of the 15, there are definitely 5 fewer supporters for Craddick, two "maybes" (three, if you include Rep. Turner), three Craddick D's facing primary challenges, and maybe a few more who would no longer call themselves Craddick D's.

The five fewer supporters include the four who have publicly disavowed Craddick - Reps. Chavez, Deshotel, Lucio, and Rose - plus the retiring Rep. Puente. There's also one possible new Craddick D, but I'd file it under "maybe" for now. As I've said before, this is at least as crucial to Craddick's hopes as the '08 general. He simply cannot win re-election as Speaker without a core of Democratic support. I'd put the over/under at ten Democratic reps for him to win, though that may change depending on what happens in the GOP primaries. Point is, he's operating close to the edge. And he knows it, too, which is why he's gearing up to take out some of his Republican detractors. We may not have a role to play in picking Presidential nominees next year, but March is still going to be eventful and exciting around here.

McCall speaks, and other items

Rep. Brian McCall, one of the main challengers to Tom Craddick last session, gave a talk at UT on Thursday. Michael Hurta was there, and he has a report on the many interesting things McCall said. Check it out.

In other Speaker-related program activities, the Observer looks at a couple of sure-to-be-hot Democratic primaries in South Texas:

Rep. Aaron Pena (D-Edinburg) represents District 40. Rep. Kino Flores (D-Hidalgo) represents District 36. Both have been repeatedly rewarded by Craddick for their loyalty. Flores chairs the Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee, while Peña chairs the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee.

Pena is facing a rematch against Eddie Saenz. Saenz is an engineer that ran against Peña in 2004 in a race that featured plenty of mud, money, and bad blood. Pena trounced Saenz in that race, winning 63.45 percent of the vote. At the time, Saenz ran at Pena from the right. This time, Pena has a record that can be attacked from the left. It remains to be seen whether Saenz can make the transition and do the shoeleather campaigning necessary to win. Saenz has already garnered the endorsement of the mayor of Edinburg, according to his blog. Pena also has a blog. This one will be fun to follow. Watch as both candidates blog maddeningly right up until the Texas Democratic primary on March 4.

Former teacher and probation officer Sandra Rodriguez has announced her intent to challenge Kino Flores. Rodriguez has the benefit of being endorsed by the well-funded Annie's List. Her husband, Fernando Macias, is a former state district judge. Here's a good preview of the race from the McAllen Monitor. Rodriguez' best asset is her opponent. Flores has made plenty of enemies in his solidly Democratic district with his heavy handed approach, including a public feud with local power broker Billy Leo. Rodriguez has already attacked Flores for skipping votes on important Democratic issues such as voter ID and helping to enable a leadership that has actively tried to kick children off of CHIP.

Flores was a Dishonorable Mention on the Best and Worst Legislators list for this year. I know he's not well liked within the Lege. We'll see how that plays out.

Finally, getting back to McCall, Karen Brooks reports on a push poll being done against him.

A volunteer for Plano GOP Rep. Brian McCall got an odd and what must have been hilarious phone call from a "pollster," I'm guessing over the weekend or maybe late last week.

The guy wanted to know if she'd ever heard of "Tommy Craddick," and what was her impression of him?

That, in itself, is pretty funny - given that nobody outside of Segway really knows the House Speaker's son. Wild guess is that the caller actually meant the speaker.

Tommy. It's just, you know, more folksy-like. And a lot more likeable than his other nickname, Absolute Powers.

Then the caller asked if she'd ever heard of "Brian McCall" and what was her impression of him?

The plot thickens.

A little bit later, the caller asked the volunteer if she would still be favorable if she knew that Brian McCall had voted against property-tax reductions - or something like that - and McCall says he voted for them.

At any rate, the real interesting part here is that the company making the calls is Promark Research, Inc., out of Conroe, Tx. - a company known in several states (Colorado, Montana, West Virgina, to name a few) for doing push polls. In political races, they always side with Republicans. I can't, in fact, find any documentation of them siding with a Dem in a race.

This is important only that it stands to reason that whoever's paying them to push poll against McCall is not doing so in the name of a Democrat. The Craddick mention was another tip-off which then, my dear Watson, lead me to guess that they're Craddick fans.

McCall hasn't even filed for speaker. Which must mean they're polling for a primary opponent, a Craddick-friendly one.

I'm a trained observer, and vaguely brilliant, granted. But could they be any less discreet?

How about something like ....

"Don't you, like, totally think Brian McCall is a punk-*ss chump? And isn't the speaker, like, a really cool guy? Right? Totally."

If only calls from pollsters were like that.

Friday rumormongering: More R-to-D switches coming?

It's from last Friday, but Rio Grande Valley Politics had some interesting scuttlebutt.

Here's the rumor du jour. Two other Republicans are considering the switch to the Democratic side. If England wins re-election as a D, and the two rumored Republicans switch sides and win as Ds, that brings up the count to 72.

Will this hurt Craddick's chance at a fourth term as Speaker? Let's do some math. I'll be hopeful and start with 72 Democrats, but unfortunately I must remove the 12 Craddick D's that supported him this past session - It was 14 total but at the end of session Rep. Eddie Lucio, III and Rep. Patrick Rose removed their support of Craddick. That leaves us with 60 Democrats, and with hopes and prayers that they stay together as a voting bloc could spell T-R-O-U-B-L-E for Craddick if they align themselves with a good set of R's for the coup de etat. For now, the key is to find at a minimum 16 Republicans to join the 60 Democrats and support one candidate for speaker. It's my own pipe dream, but it could happen.

At the time of Kirk England's party change, I heard some rumors about there being more to come. It could still happen, but I suppose I figure if it were going to, it might have happened by now. On the other hand, there's always the possibility of someone making like US Rep. Rodney Alexander of Louisiana, and filing to run with the other party just before the deadline, in order to keep potential opponents at bay. Anybody else hearing anything about this?

As for the Craddick arithmetic, the primaries will be as much a factor as the general election will. We know some Craddick Ds - Pena and Bailey, to name two - will have challengers, while some non-Craddick Rs will also face (likely well-funded) opposition. Last year, this broke favorably for the anti-Craddick forces, with Al Edwards losing to Borris Miles, then Vilma Luna stepping down and Solomon Ortiz Jr coming in. The Republican primaries were more about vouchers than Speaker politics, even though folks like Tommy Merritt and Delwin Jones were targeted. That will likely be different this time. Point is, the math may be very different one way or the other after March than it is now. We'll see how it goes.

Joe Heflin named "Legislator of the Year"

Here's one possible reason why State Rep. Joe Heflin is not at the top of the GOP list of vulnerable incumbents: He's been doing a really good job.

State Rep. Joe Heflin of Crosbyton was credited with a $5 million reimbursement to counties for last May's special constitutional amendments election in his 2007 Legislator of the Year Award from the Texas County Judges and Commissioners Association.

Representing Howard and Glasscock counties in the 16-county 85th District, he was lauded at the group's annual convention last week in Galveston.

"Joe fought like a bulldog to make sure counties were reimbursed for the extra expense," said TCJCA general counsel Jim Allison.

Heflin said Monday he and other sponsors initially sought $15 million but were gratified with the final amount.

"That certainly beats nothing," said the Democrat, who has a town hall meeting from 10 to 11 a.m. today at Garden City Community Center.

"Being a representative is a participation sport. You have to get involved and go with it. As an attorney and former Crosby County judge, one of my concerns was if it would be as boring on the House floor as it appeared from the gallery.

"But there is a lot happening when you're moving through 10,000 bills. It was pretty exciting and mostly non-partisan. If you go down to Austin with either side's radical agenda, you're not representing your district, in my view."

He backed a secret ballot in the "test vote" for Speaker of the House Tom Craddick's Jan. 9 re-election. It failed by 80-68 and the Midland Republican won a third two-year term.

However, Heflin indicated Monday he may support the speaker in January 2009. "I think Craddick has been good for West Texas," he said.

"The West Texas coalition sticks together because we have to. With Craddick as speaker, we were able to do some things that might not have been accomplished. Especially in the last days of the session in May, a lot of things were pending and there was no budget."

Heflin said he was impressed when Craddick secured crucial funding for Texas Tech University in Lubbock and Angelo State University in San Angelo.

[...]

Heflin said Houston and Dallas representatives want to replace Craddick as speaker with one of their own, but they are misguided because they "would spend all their time fighting each other and cancel each other out" if one had the speakership.

Noting the late Bill Clayton of Springlake, former Rep. Pete Laney of Hale Center and Craddick have held the powerful post since 1975, Heflin said, "I'm concerned that if we lose the speakership, it will go to Dallas or Houston and they'll hang onto it forever.

"I have had six or seven members come to me since the session and ask for pledge cards for the next speaker's race, but I've said, no, I'm not doing any pledges right now."

The story notes that Heflin will be having a joint fundraiser with Republican State Sen. Kel Seliger. That's how a Democrat can win in a heavily Republican area.

I'm not too happy to see that Heflin is considering backing Tom Craddick for Speaker in 2009, though I can at least understand his rationale. At least he's not committed to it yet. Ironically, it was Craddick's support from some mostly-urban Democrats that allowed him to hang on in the first place. All I know is that if we can get a Democratic majority in the House, we can spare Heflin the dilemma.

TLCV rates Houston legislators

Actually, the Texas League of Conservation Voters has put out its scorecard for the entire Lege, but I'm just going to summarize it for the Harris County contingent. You can see the whole thing here (PDF), and I've reproduced their email beneath the fold. Here are the results for the Harris delegation to the House:

Name                  Score   Grade

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

Alma Allen (D)          93%      A+

Kevin Bailey (D)        83%      A

Dwayne Bohac (R)        38%      D

Bill Callegari (R)      31%      F

Ellen Cohen (D)         88%      A

Garnet Coleman (D)     100%      A+

Joe Crabb (R)           35%      F

John Davis (R)          41%      D

Harold Dutton (D)       77%      B

Gary Elkins (R)         26%      F

Jessica Farrar (D)      87%      A

Patricia Harless (R)    25%      F

Ana Hernandez (D)       92%      A+

Scott Hochberg (D)      96%      A+

Borris Miles (D)       100%      A+

Jim Murphy (R)          35%      D

Rick Noriega (D)        96%      A+

Debbie Riddle (R)       29%      F

Wayne Smith (R)         23%      F

Robert Talton (R)       25%      F

Senfronia Thompson (D) 100%      A+

Sylvester Turner (D)    59%      C

Corbin Van Arsdale (R)  32%      F

Hubert Vo (D)           96%      A+

Beverly Woolley (R)     28%      F

Note that every Craddick D scored worse than every non-Craddick D, though they still scored better than every Republican. Overall, only two Republicans scored as high as 50% - Delwin Jones (52%), and the newest member of the Democratic contingent, Kirk England (69%).

There isn't a comparable level of detail for the Senate, since there were far fewer environmental bills voted on over there. Special mention is given to Sen. Mike Jackson and his infamous SB1317, and to Sen. Dan Patrick, who apparently opposed every clean air bill that came up. Click on for a summary of that from the TLCV email, or go to the full report.

UPDATE: Fixed incorrect grades for Dwayne Bohac, Ana Hernandez, and Jim Murphy. Thanks to Thomas in the comments for the catch.

Texas League of Conservation Voters Grades Legislature

Houston legislators rated on Toxics, Clean School Buses, and Clean Air; Sen. Jackson and Patrick named to "Worst" list

(AUSTIN) - State Sen. Mike Jackson has the ignoble distinction of championing the worst environmental bill of the year in Texas, according to a scorecard of the 2007 legislative session released today by the Texas League of Conservation Voters (TLCV).

"We expect this to be an issue with many voters in the 2008 election," said Colin Leyden, TLCV's Executive Director. "Jackson is going to have to explain why it was so important to him to stop Houston from protecting the health and safety of its citizens."

Frustrated over the state's lack of action in addressing toxic "hotspots" in Houston, Mayor Bill White Mayor Bill White proposed that Houston should be able to regulate toxics using a city nuisance ordinance. Jackson's polluter lobby-backed bill prohibited a municipality from regulating air pollution through ordinance.

During floor and committee debate, it often appeared as if Sen. Jackson either did not understand his own bill, or was being purposely misleading. Despite being told otherwise, he repeatedly told fellow Senators that Texas should let the EPA do their job of regulating toxics and seemed to think that the issue was part of ongoing efforts to reduce area smog. Unlike NOx and other major ozone contributors, the EPA does not regulate toxic emissions.

"It's difficult to know which is worse - willful ignorance, or deceit," said Leyden. Sen.Jackson joined Sen. Patrick as being TLCV's "Worst" senators. Not all the news from the Senate was bad for Houston. Senators Ellis and Gallegos were both named to the TLCV "Best" list for their efforts.

The TLCV scorecard rates legislators on their actions to protect the state's air, water, and other natural resources. The scorecard provides objective, factual information about conservation voting records, and helps hold the Texas Legislature accountable. Each vote scored presented a clear choice for our elected officials to uphold the conservation values shared by Texans.

The 27 votes analyzed by the League's House scorecard included several votes and issues that will be of great interest to Houston voters in the upcoming 2008 legislative races.

The House also had the opportunity to address toxics legislation. During debate over SB 12, the bill's House sponsor, Rep. Dennis Bonnen, accepted two amendments that would help reduce toxic air emissions. Rep. Senfronia Thompson's "motion to instruct" is a common method to inform conference committee members of important provisions the House wants protected during negotiations with the Senate.

Two Houston-area Republicans, Rep. Bohac and Rep. Davis, broke from their party and voted in favor of Rep. Thompson's motion. Both Bohac and Davis are in competitive districts and faced criticism in the 2006 election for their previous voting record on toxics. Last session, all Houston-area Republicans voted against efforts to fix toxic air emissions.

"The good news is that the political process is working. A few legislators who felt the heat over their bad voting record are now listening to voters. Their vote is important, but now we need them to show some leadership and stand up to the House leadership by filing bills and sponsoring legislation," said Leyden.

Fifteen separate bills were filed in the House addressing toxic air emissions, all by Democrats, but Environmental Regulations Committee Chair, Dennis Bonnen, refused to hear a single one. He also threatened to kill his own clean-air bill rather than allow a floor vote on toxic air amendments.

Another House vote of interest to the Houston-area was an amendment to protect children from asthma as well as exposure to dangerous chemicals by providing funds to clean up diesel emissions in Texas school buses. Studies show that toxic pollution levels inside old diesel school buses can be five times higher than background levels due to emissions from crankcases and tailpipes.

This amendment was opposed by 20 of the 35 House members who represent constituents living in the Houston non-attainment area. The amendment drew bi-partisan support , but Rep. Dwayne Bohac was the only Houston-area Republican to vote in favor of it. Those who voted against it (overall TLCV score included) include Representatives: Dennis Bonnen (F), Bill Callegari (F), Joe Crabb (F), Brandon Creighton (F), John Davis (D), Harold Dutton (B), Rob Eisler (F), Gary Elkins (F), Patricia Harless (F), Charlie Howard (F), Jim Murphy (D), Mike O'Day (D), John Otto (F), Debbie Riddle (F), Wayne Smith (F), Robert Talton (F), Larry Taylor (F), Corbin Van Arsdale (F), Beverly Woolley (F), and John Zerwas (D). All Democrats except Rep. Dutton voted in favor of the amendment.

"Legislators are going to have to answer to voters as to why they voted against funding a program to clean up toxic emissions that our school children breathe every time they ride the bus," said Leyden. Funding for the program was supported by the Texas PTA and other groups.

A Quick Look at the House Numbers for the Houston area

This year's scorecard includes votes on some important conservation legislation which passed with unanimous or near-unanimous consent because of its "apple pie" type qualities. This was also due in part to a positive House procedural change requiring all final votes on bills to be recorded. This caused all legislators to start with a much higher "base" score than in previous years.

Average Houston-area House Score: 56% ...................Entire House Average: 57%
Average Houston-area Republican Score: 31% ............ All Republicans in House: 32%
Average Houston-area Democratic Score: 89% .............. All House Dems: 84%
Perfect Houston-area 100's: 3 ................................... Entire House: 11
Overachievers (A+): 9 above 90% ................................. Entire House: 36
Houston-area Failures (F): 15 below 35% ....................... Entire House: 56
Highest Houston-area Republican Score: John Davis 41%
Lowest Houston-area Democrat Score: Sylvester Turner 59%

A complete House scorecard with vote descriptions can be found at www.tlcv.org

"In general, the scorecard reflects moderate, forward progress on conservation issues in Texas," said Leyden. "But the real story of last session is that Texas is no longer moving backwards. Unlike previous sessions, conservation advocates didn't have to spend vast amounts of time fighting bad bills."

The 2007 Legislature did manage to take a few small steps forward. Thanks to the work of a large and diverse group of advocates, state parks finally received a much needed boost in funding. A modest energy efficiency bill was passed. Bills succeeded to protect rivers and bays and promote water conservation. And the money to fund state programs for clean air initiatives in large urban areas was re-appropriated back into the program.

There were, however, numerous missed opportunities to fix dirty power plant permitting, address climate change, and secure a cleaner more sustainable energy future for Texas.

The Senate made more progress on conservation than the House, and Speaker Tom Craddick continues to be the biggest obstacle to reasonable conservation legislation in the legislature. Craddick's appointment to chair the Environmental Regulations Committee, Angleton Republican Dennis Bonnen, effectively killed any sensible environmental legislation that is opposed by the polluter lobby. Bills on global warming, toxic air emissions, school bus emissions, and global warming that passed the Senate never saw the light of day or were weakened in the House.

"It's clear we need to clean up the Texas House," said Leyden. "In 2008, our PAC will focus even more resources defending conservation allies, and defeating enemies." In the 2006 election, the TLCV Political Action Committee helped elect three challengers who defeated bad incumbents, defend two good incumbents, and win two open seats for the conservation community.

"The political winds for both political parties are shifting in Texas, with conservation issues like clean air and global warming becoming top issues for concerned voters," said Leyden. "We're confident that this trend will only increase as we head into the 2008 political season, and our scorecard will be a useful tool for voters to assess their incumbents - and vote accordingly."

Senate Highlights, Heroes, and Despots

There were not enough record votes in the Senate for a meaningful scorecard, but a complete Senate narrative with highlights and specific votes can be found at www.tlcv.org

The Best

Sen. Rodney Ellis - One of the first bills Sen. Ellis (Houston) filed was SB 124, which provided stricter vehicle emissions standards in Texas. Sen. Ellis also filed a bill, SB 860, calling for a two year moratorium on the permitting of any new coal fired power plants in Texas.

Sen. Kirk Watson - Freshman Senator, Kirk Watson, had a flawless voting record, and also authored two of the most important conservation bills of the session. The Senate overwhelmingly passed Sen. Watson's SB 529, which authorized the use of surplus money within existing clean air programs to reduce dirty emissions from Texas school buses. Sen. Watson also introduced and passed SB 1687, the "no regrets" global warming bill. This bill required the state environmental agency to identify strategies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save consumers money or cost nothing.

Sen. Eliot Shapleigh - El Paso Senator, Eliot Shapleigh, has a long history fighting for the health and safety of his constituents and protecting our state's natural resources. This session, Shapleigh filed bills to strengthen TCEQ air permitting rules, and passed legislation to study the effects of climate change on the Rio Grande.

Sen. Mario Gallegos - Two Senate bills, SB 1924 and SB 1855, by Sen. Mario Gallegos, addressed toxic air emissions. Scientific studies by the City of Houston and health, environmental and medical branches of Texas universities, confirm that levels of toxins in Texas' air threaten the public's health. This is specifically a problem in Houston, where industry emissions have created toxic "hotspots".

The Worst

Sen. Mike Jackson - Sen. Jackson has the ignoble distinction of championing the worst environmental bill of the session, SB 1317. Frustrated over the state's lack of action in addressing toxic "hotspots" in Houston, Mayor Bill White proposed that Houston should be able to regulate toxics using a city nuisance ordinance. SB 1317 prohibited a municipality from regulating air pollution through ordinance.

Sen. Dan Patrick - Sen. Patrick's 2007 record on conservation is easily summed up. If legislation before the Senate attempted to clean our air, address climate change, or protect children from harmful school bus emissions - he was against it.

Dishonorable Mention

Sen. Eddie Lucio - Instead of joining 10 other senators to block the polluter-backed SB 1317 from being heard, Sen. Lucio, after saying he'd help, registered as "present not voting". The bill was free to move forward and eventually passed the Senate.

The Texas League of Conservation Voters and the affiliated TLCVPAC is dedicated to electing legislators who conserve Texas air, water, parks, public lands and public waters, and defeating those who don't.

State Rep. Kirk England switches to Democratic Party

Wow.

State Rep. Kirk England, R-Grand Prairie, has scheduled a news conference at 10 a.m. Thursday to announce he's switching to the Democratic Party.

"In December of 2005, when I filed to run for office, I made a promise to the hardworking families in our community to fight for our public schools, fight for affordable health care and to fight for them on pocketbook issues," Mr. England said in a statement. "After one session in the House, I found that the Republican leadership in Austin had no tolerance for the values and priorities of the folks I represent. That is why... I will announce my intention to seek reelection to the Texas House as a Democrat."

By late Wednesday afternoon, Democrats were already welcoming him to the party.

"Kirk will bring a different perspective," said State Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas. "He's not just jumping off a sinking ship. He's trying to represent the views of his district."

The news of Mr. England's departure stunned Republican leaders.

Dallas County Republican Party Chairman Kenn George said Wednesday that Mr. England's move caught him by surprise.

"I hadn't heard about it at all," he said. "Needless to say, I'm disappointed."

As the story notes, the Dallas Dems are also welcoming back a onetime D-to-R switcher, a Criminal Court Judge. Way to go, Dallas Dems!

This brings the Democrats one step closer to a majority in the State House, even before the 2008 elections. Note that this is not the same as being one vote closer to ousting Tom Craddick, since England was already in the anti-Craddick camp. But it's still a step in the right direction.

This assumes that England will be able to hold the seat. The Lone Star Project looks at the trends in England's HD106 and suggests that while he was a good enough politician to win either way, the district was definitely going blue. I know he was going to be a top target as a Republican after his extremely close loss to Katy Hubener last November. If nothing else, now he'll be a top target of the GOP.

Assuming as well that he's the Democratic nominee:

Ms. Hubener, a real estate agent who had planned to make another run for the seat, said she was considering her options in light of Mr. England's switch. She now must be prepared to wage two campaigns -- a primary race against Mr. England in March and a general election in November 2008.

Dallas County Democratic chairwoman Darlene Ewing said Mr. England's move to the party was a positive. But she said that many grass roots party activists would not support Mr. England if Ms. Hubener decided on another run.

Though the party remains neutral in primary elections, Ms. Ewing said she personally backs Ms. Hubener.

"If Katy runs, I'm sticking with her," Ms. Ewing said. "He's going to have trouble beating her in the primary. The grass roots Democrats are going to back Hubener."

I said it before in the case of Wendy Davis in Tarrant County, and I'll say it again: We Democrats are never going to be a majority in this state unless we convert a few Republicans as we go. The best way to demonstrate that it's okay to change sides and that you'll feel welcome once you do is to have a few of those converts make the case for switching by running on the Democratic ticket. While I respect Ms. Hubener and certainly won't tell her not to run, I hope that the grassroots Democrats in HD106 will listen to what England has to say for himself about why he's switching and how he'd represent them as a Democrat, and make up their own minds.

In the meantime, I say "Welcome to the Democratic Party, Kirk England". May there be many more like you in the coming days. BOR, who appears to have been out in front with this, has more.

UPDATE: Boadicea offers a welcome and some "unsolicited advice".

State Rep. Fred Hill will not seek re-election

This is a surprise - State Rep. Fred Hill, who a few months ago had announced his candidacy for House Speaker, has decided to retire instead. This is bad news on a couple of levels: Hill had developed into a strong critic of Speaker Craddick, going so far as to make the infamous motion to vacate that Craddick refused to recognize. His district is 60-40 GOP at the county candidate level, making it unlikely to flip to the Democrats, which leaves the possibility of a Craddick ally taking his place. Ironic, since it was Hill who observed that freshman are Craddick's oxygen. Hill was also a strong voice against appraisal caps, which earned him Dan Patrick's undying enmity. There's potentially a lot to lose with his retirement. At least he thinks Craddick is going down anyway, and he's got a couple of replacement candidates in mind, so maybe it won't matter. Be that as it may, best wishes to Fred Hill in the next stage of his life. BOR has more.

The cost of your wedding is about to increase

As of this Friday, the Warren Chisum Marriage Tax, along with many other new laws, goes into effect. That means that if you haven't yet made an honest man or woman out of your current sweetheart, better get cracking while it's still a bargain. The rest of you, well, I'd hope for something like this to become available in the near future so the experience can at least be memorable.

Craddick and Keel

Vince has been checking into the documents related to the highly unusual resignation and replacement of House Parliamentarian Denise Davis and Deputy Parliamentarian Chris Griesel, and he's found some interesting stuff.

Among the documents is a memorandum written by new House Parliamentarian Terry Keel, a former Republican legislator, three days before his appointment as interim parliamentarian (and before Davis' resignation) which set forth the claims Craddick continues to use to justify his refusal to allow members to raise a motion to vacate the chair.

In addition, the documents also reveal that both Davis and Griesel have taken serious issue with House Speaker Tom Craddick's characterization of their employment as being governed by the tenets of attorney-client privilege. Though both are themselves attorneys, documents released to Capitol Annex show that now are both represented by Austin attorney Charles Herring, Jr., and that Herring sent Speaker Craddick a letter challenging the claims he made upon their departure from their positions.

So Craddick got an opinion he didn't like, found someone who'd give him an opinion he did like, forced out the people who gave him the opinion he didn't like, and installed the person who gave him the opinion he did like. Neat. Oh, and then he told the people he forced out that they'd better keep their mouths shut about this, or he'd claim they violated attorney-client privilege.

Vince has more, including a timeline of events, and an explanation for why the Keel memorandum is a smoking gun. One wonders what AG Greg Abbott might think about that. Anyway, check it out.

Report card time

The Observer blog rounds up a few legislative scorecards from varying interest groups (and of varying degrees of quality and usefulness) for the 80th Lege, and notes that a few heavy hitters haven't been heard from yet.

Several organizations, most notably the Texas Association of Businesses, the League of Conservation Voters, NARAL-Pro Choice, and Equality Texas, compiled report cards for the 79th legislature but haven't yet released one for the 80th.

While I'm sure it's a time-consuming pain in the rear to compile these things, I'd think there would be more value to them if they were released closer to the end of the session, when what has gone on is still relatively fresh in people's minds. On the other hand, as these things are mostly used by campaigns, having them come out during or just before election season makes sense, too. It's probably just the junkie in me wanting the information sooner rather than later.

Kudos to the Observer for putting all these links in one place, too. I've done some searching for older report cards from some of these groups, and it can be a frustrating experience. I hope they'll do an update when more such reports get published.

Now it's up to Abbott

Yesterday was the deadline for filing briefs with the Attorney General in regards to the Keffer request for a ruling on Speaker Craddick's claim of absolute power to recognize or not a motion to vacate the chair. Quite a few interested parties took him up on the offer.

As the deadline for arguing the case approached Friday, briefs poured into Abbott's office. Abbott has 180 days in which to rule.

Those supporting Keffer included briefs from speaker candidates Reps. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, and Brian McCall, R-Plano. Speaker candidates Reps. Fred Hill, R-Richardson, Delwin Jones, R-Lubbock, and Sylvester Turner and Senfronia Thompson, both D-Houston, did not file briefs.

Five other Republican legislators and the Texas Progressive Alliance, a group of liberal bloggers, also filed briefs in support of Keffer.

Yes, that's my blogging colleagues and me. The brief is here, and an executive summary of its contents is here.

Craddick's ultimate trump card in the legal battle, and an out for Abbott, may be an opinion that then-Attorney General John Hill issued in 1973 when asked a speaker's race question by then-state Rep. Fred Head, D-Troup, a candidate for speaker. Hill answered constitutional and state law questions but refused to give an opinion on House rules.

"Construction of the rules of the Texas House of Representatives is a responsibility, in the first place, of the speaker himself and secondarily, the parliamentarian," Hill wrote.

I'm not so sure that's a trump card for Craddick, as it just means the issue will be argued again when the 81st Lege convenes. It is, however, most definitely an out for Craddick, one that Burka thinks Abbott ought to take. He's got six months to make up his mind. Stay tuned.

Mighty expensive groceries you've got there, Mister Speaker

You might have seen RG Ratcliffe's report on how various legislators and statewide officeholders have been spending their campaign cash, which is something which my colleagues JohnCoby and Muse have been doing tirelessly for months now. Possibly the most interesting tidbit buried in the individual reports was in that of Speaker Craddick. As Eye on Williamson puts it:

Speaker Craddick spent $22,976.10 at H-E-B during the January-to-June reporting cycle.

To be fair, the regular session of the 80th Legislature occurred during this reporting period; however that still works out to $128 for each day of the 140-day session. That's a lot of Rice Krispies. So much that the groceries were running 5 percent of the $455,023 spent out of Craddick's campaign cash.

Now, I don't know what kind of tastes Tom Craddick has, or how many mouths he's feeding these days, but here's two things to keep in mind. One, legislators get a per diem that's supposed to pay for things like food. And two, all of the listed expenditures for "HEB Credit Receivables"