April, 2007:

OK, forget what I said about HB626. The new version isn’t any better.

Instead of spending $220 for fresh copies of naturalization papers, the bill would now simply make the Secretary of State vet birth certificates and naturalization papers when cross-checking voter registration applications with social security and drivers license records.

[…]

Whether Anchia, Gallego, and Hochberg sign off on it or not wouldn’t change the fact that if the Secretary of State can’t find the naturalization papers, then s/he wouldn’t approve the registration, hence the application is dropped.

So your future voter registration would be in the hands of a bureaucrat. You can imagine the potential for error, especially if you have a very common name, or an easily-misspelled name. It’s almost preferable to make people spend their own money on the certified copies. And you just know that the SOS office will be underfunded and understaffed for this, because when has the Lege ever allocated anough money for this sort of thing? No thanks, I say.

Well, this sounds promising.

Phil King has been talking to Democrats about a possible solution to the voter registration bill, which, in its original form, required voters to prove their citizenship in order to register to vote. This onerous requirement would have made it impossible in practice to conduct a voter registration drive, since most folks don’t have certified copies of birth certificates or a passport lying around their houses. King’s floor substitute shifts the burden of verifying citizenship to the Secretary of State’s office. Under a recent federal law that took effect on January 1 of this year, states must cross-check voter registration applications with social security and drivers license records. King’s proposal would add birth certificates and naturalization papers. If the voter’s citizenship still cannot be verified, the secretary of state would contact the appropriate local officials who would get in touch with the prospective voter to see if additional information is available.

The Democrats (Anchia, Gallego, Hochberg) are currently vetting the proposal. That may take awhile.

Like Eye on Williamson, I’m not exactly sure how this would differ from what we’re currently doing. Be that as it may, if the Democrats Burka names say they’re okay with what comes back, then I expect I’ll be okay with it as well. We’ll see what happens.

UPDATE: I’m now hearing that any optimism on this may be premature. Stay tuned.

BOR reminds us on the next assault on the right to vote that will come up in the House today, Rep. Phil King’s odious HB626. Here’s a list of legislators to call and urge a No vote on this sucker.

At this point, I’ve made all the arguments I know how to make. Either you think voting is a right that needs to be protected, or you think it’s a privilege that can be restricted at whim by a legislative majority. That’s pretty much all there is to it.

As you know, only one of the two pernicious voter ID bills that were brought to the floor of the House made it through. The other got sent back to committee on a point of order. That bill, HB626, is expected to be back on the floor this coming Monday. The True Courage Action Network has a call to action:

If they pass HB 626:

* You’ll be required to produce a certified copy of your birth certificate or passport or naturalization papers to register to vote.
* You’ll be required to produce your birth certificate or one of those other hard-to-find and expensive documents to re-register (20% of Texans move between election cycles).
* Voter registration drives will be a thing of the past because we don’t carry around our birth certificate (if we even have one) when we shop.
* The voter turnout rate in Texas, already the lowest in the nation at 26%, will drop even lower.

We expect a floor vote on Monday. This time, in addition to calling your own rep (contact info here), we’re asking you to call the following House members who are believed to be undecided, and ask them to stand up with courage and vote NO on HB 626:

Kirk England (512) 463-0694
Mike Krusee (512) 463-0670
Pat Haggerty (512) 463-0728
Mike Hamilton (512) 463-0412
Harvey Hilderbran (512) 463-0536
Delwin Jones (512) 463-0542
Tommy Merritt (512) 463-0750
Todd Smith (512) 463-0522

A lot of American citizens in this state don’t have birth certificates – basically, anyone born at home, which is a common thing in rural areas, may not have one. They’ll be pretty much out of luck if they need to register or re-register. You’ll need a certified copy of your birth certificate if you ever move to another county, which will require a re-registration. And you’d better hope it doesn’t get lost in the mail, if you like your identity as it is.

This bill is (I presume, anyway) covered by Sen. Ellis’ letter of intent to block on the Senate floor. And I see that Dems in the Senate are on their guard about any back-door maneuvers.

On Tuesday the Senate considered Senate Bill 1464, a proposal by Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, that says if someone is excused from jury duty because of a lack of citizenship or because they do not live in the right county, they cannot vote in that county.

Before a vote on Janek’s bill, Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, had a few questions for Sen. John Carona, who was presiding over the Senate in place of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. Actually, the questions were really for Senate Parliamentarian Karina Casari Davis, who was advising Carona just as she does whoever is the presiding officer.

Watson asked whether the voter ID bill would be a proper amendment to attach to Janek’s bill. Carona, based on the parliamentarian’s counsel, said no, that such an amendment would be subject to a point of order. Watson asked if the House attached the voter ID language to Janek’s bill, would it be subject to a point of order and have to return to the House. Carona said yes. Essentially, Watson’s questioning established that the voter ID language is not germane to Janek’s bill.

Don’t be surprised to see similar questions about other Senate legislation related to voting.

Bring it on, I say. Frankly, a point of order to kill the whole calendar wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world right about now.

There are many things that “they” don’t tell you about before you become a parent. You know, things like how often you have to trim tiny baby fingernails, the fact that you’ll be lucky to squeeze your one-month-old into 0-3 month clothing, and that babies aren’t born knowing how to be breastfed. It may look natural, but they have to learn how to do it right, and until they do it can be a frustrating and (take Tiffany’s word for it) painful experience.

That’s where lactation consultants come in. We were fortunate that our doula was also qualified to assist in this matter, but a reliable resource isn’t always available. In fact, the term “lactation consultant” is an unofficial one that doesn’t require a person calling herself that to have any specific training or background.

There’s a bill in the Lege, HB703 by Reps. Mike Villarreal and Jessica Farrar, that would define the term and put some restrictions on its use. Here’s a blurb from the Central Texas Healthy Mother Healthy Baby Coalition in support of HB703:

The Lactation Consultant Licensure bill, HB 703, is a title protection act, which means it restricts the use of the term “lactation consultant” (LC) to individuals specifically trained in lactation management. It does not restrict unlicensed individuals from helping mothers with breastfeeding.

Currently, LCs are certified by the International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners. To obtain IBLCE certification, the individual must complete education specific to lactation science, complete a specific number of hours helping breastfeeding mothers and babies, and pass an exam to test their knowledge. They are also required to complete 75 hours of continuing education within 5 years, and to re-certify by examination at 10 year intervals to demonstrate continued competence. HB 703 describes this process. The intent of HB 703 is to augment LC certification with state licensure so that consumers will be able to 1) identify trained lactation consultants, and 2) have a place to lodge complaints locally in the event of bad or unethical care.

The Texas Medical Association and the Texas Pediatric Society have decided to oppose HB 703. Currently, the policy of the TMA and other medical professional organizations is to block the establishment of any new health care professions. The rationale for this is several-fold, but appears also to include concern over shrinking shares of medical dollars. While this position benefits physicians, it does not benefit consumers.

TMA also argues against the bill on the basis that physicians should be able to provide lactation care without being licensed as LCs. HB 703 does not require physicians to become licensed as LCs in order to do so. The bill also specifies that nurses do not have to be licensed LCs to provide lactation care. The bill would provide title protection but not practice protection. That is, anyone who holds themselves out as a Lactation Consultant would have to be licensed as an LC, but LC licensure would not be required to simply help a mother with breastfeeding.

A somewhat wordier version of that is here. Unfortunately, HB703 is currently pending in the Public Health committee, where it may die without ever being heard on the floor if nothing happens soon. If you think this is a good idea, and especially if your State Rep is on the Public Health committee, please contact them and let them know that you’d like to see the House take action on this. Thanks very much.

The HPV conference commitee did its work in short order, and now HB1098 is on its way to Governor Perry’s desk.

There was no word on what Perry would do about House Bill 1098. He has 10 days from the date the bill reaches his desk, excluding Sundays, to decide whether to sign it into law, let it become law without his signature or veto it.

“The constitution provides the governor 10 days from receipt to make a decision. And he’ll take those days and announce his decision when he believes it is appropriate,” spokeswoman Krista Moody said.

Perry was traveling to Eagle Pass to assess the aftermath of deadly tornadoes there when the House agreed to changes in the bill made by the Senate, including one that would require lawmakers to reconsider in January 2011 whether the vaccine should be required for school enrollment.

[…]

Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, the bill’s author, has said he hopes Perry won’t veto the bill.

Both the House and Senate passed the bill with the necessary two-thirds majorities to override a veto.

The Senate sponsor, Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, said lawmakers should reconsider the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in four years. Merck’s Gardasil was approved for sale in June.

When Janet Elliott blogged this story, she thought Perry would let the bill become law without his signature. I think the odds slightly favor a veto, as one last defiant show of power by Perry. The votes are there to override, and I daresay it’d happen easily enough, but I think he may make them do it. I could be wrong – Elliott’s scenario makes a lot of sense. I just think he’ll be stubborn about it. We’ll see.

Eye on Williamson surveys the editorial landscape for reactions to the voter ID bill that passed out of the House on Tuesday. The verdict, not surprisingly, is uniformly negative. I particularly like the Caller‘s classification of HB218 as “the most creative solution to an essentially non-existent problem”.

Meanwhile I’ve pondered how one might go about actually stealing an election over at Kuff’s World. Check it out.

Rep. Leo Berman’s HB2491, the only campaign finance reform bill to make it out of committee so far, is now one step closer to passing out of the House. For what it’s worth.

Craig McDonald, executive director of the Austin-based campaign finance reform group, Texans for Public Justice, said the bill “should have taken the opportunity to define (issue advertisements) and should have made it clear that corporations can only support their own political action committees.”

McDonald said corporate money in the past has been used to fund issue ads that were political in nature, even though the ads did not specifically say “vote for” or “vote against” a particular person.

[…]

Berman’s bill clarifies a list of administrative expenses that corporations and unions can fund under Texas law through their political action committees. They include office space, telephones and utilities.

The bill also spells out expenditures that corporations and unions cannot fund, including political consulting to support or oppose a candidate, telephone banks to communicate with voters to support or oppose a candidate, electioneering brochures and direct mail.

Berman said he tried to win over critics by defining electioneering, a nonpermissible expenditure, which he said includes political campaigning or direct mail. He said he couldn’t fathom anyone opposing his bill now. “It specifies what you can and cannot do,” he said.

Well, I don’t oppose it, but as I indicated in my previous post, it’s not clear to me that this is a better approach than the common sense one we had before. In nearly 100 years of the current law’s existence, it wasn’t until someone as brazen and amoral as Tom DeLay and his crew came along that anyone really tried to flout it. I recognize that Berman’s bill would have slammed the door on the approach DeLay took in 2002, but the problem with specifying what’s forbidden is that it invites the seeking of loopholes. Maybe he’s covered the bases better, I don’t know. It just doesn’t feel like it’s really doing anything, I guess.

While I was critical of Clay Robison for his characterization of the then-upcoming voter ID fight, he did identify an important issue:

If the Democrats stick together, they will prevent Republicans from mustering the necessary two-thirds vote to advance the proposal. But Houston Sen. Mario Gallegos’ health will be key. Gallegos, a Democrat, has returned to the Capitol only twice since liver transplant surgery earlier this year.

The two-thirds vote is calculated on the number of senators present. Democrats can block the motion when all 31 senators are there, but the 20 Republicans, voting together on a strictly partisan vote, can run over Democratic opposition if one Democrat is absent.

Today, Sen. Gallegos informed Lt. Gov. Dewhurst that he wants to be notified in time to make it to Austin for this vote.

Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, who continues to recuperate from a liver transplant and is only attending legislative sessions part-time, said today that he has asked Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to give him 24 hours notice before attempting to pass the controversial voter ID legislation.

[…]

In January, Dewhurst agreed in writing to give Gallegos 24 hours’ notice “one time for a vote on a single piece of legislation.”

But Dewhurst also told Gallegos, “I did not promise, and obviously, I cannot in good conscience promise to hold all votes during your absence.”

The good news is that according to Patricia Kilday Hart, Dewhurst intends to maintain the two-thirds rule for this debate, something which was not a guarantee from the beginning. Of course, since this bill might wind up as an amendment to something else, Gallegos’ presence may not ultimately affect its status. But it still matters, and I knew he’d step up. Thanks, Sen. Gallegos.

As the title on the Observer blog post says, “Oops!”

Due to a technical blunder, two anti-abortion bills died despite overwhelming support in the House State Affairs Committee. House Bill 175, a trigger ban on abortion in Texas should Roe v. Wade be overturned, and House Bill 1750, an abortion and judicial bypass reporting bill, had the support of seven of the 9-member committee and were expected to pass. They only received a vote of 4-to-2, just one short of the five needed to pass them out of committee.

The committee’s chairman Rep. David Swinford (R-Dumas) called the vote in an April 18th meeting on the House floor upon adjournment. Though he saw seven members present, only six had in fact been recorded as present in the roll call, Swinford says.

“It was my fault,” Swinford says. “It was unintentional.” The bills can only be reconsidered at the request of one of the opposing votes, who have decided not to do so, he says.

Good for them. The reps in question are (I presume, anyway, given the makeup of the State Affairs committee) Mark Veasey and my own rep, Jessica Farrar. These victories may not stick, since there’s still the Senate version of the bills to consider, but I’ll take what I can get.

And speaking of “Jessica’s Law”, it’s out of the Senate and into a joint committee.

The Texas Senate passed its long-awaited “Jessica’s Law” Tuesday to protect children from sexual predators, but it reserved the death penalty for those twice convicted of the most heinous child rapes.

The bill also creates a new offense for “continual sexual abuse” of a child, increases penalties for certain child sex offenses and removes the statute of limitations for victims of child sex crimes.

“I am confident that this legislation will help protect the safety of our children and send a clear message to those who would prey on them. Don’t do it,” said the bill’s author, Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville.

The Senate’s bill now returns to the House, where members can concur or call for a conference committee to work out differences.

Unlike the conference committees for the HPV vaccine and toll road moratorium, this one is under little time pressure. Governor Perry can’t wait to sign it.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, the only dissenter in the 30-1 vote, said he’s concerned about expanding the death penalty in Texas when DNA tests have exonerated several inmates who served time for crimes they didn’t commit.

“All of us have to make tough choices, but at some point we have to know where to draw the line between what’s politically right but morally wrong,” he said.

He also pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the death penalty for the rape of a 16-year-old girl was unconstitutional because death should be reserved for murder.

There’s sure to be a Supreme Court ruling on this law as well eventually. Given the nature of the Roberts Court, however, I wouldn’t be so confident that it’ll be struck down. Nonetheless, kudos to Sen. Ellis for his stance, and for reminding us of how problematic the death penalty has been in Texas. Grits has more.