Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

May 18th, 2009:

You there! Put down the Internet and slowly back away!

May 18th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Hair Balls tries to make sense of a Senate criminal justice bill that is currently in committee in the House.

[The bill,] authored by Republican State Senator Florence Shapiro of Plano seems remarkably straightforward: It prohibits registered sex offenders from “using the Internet to access pornographic material.”

It would also establish a means for “a commercial social networking site or Internet service provider” to be provided with a list of said perverts, so such businesses can alert authorities if they’re using those sites to prey on kids.

But what got Hair Balls was that first part — about not allowing these pervs to look at any pornography, or as stated later in the bill, anything deemed “obscene.” (The bill refers to the obscenity section of the penal code, which offers different definitions of obscenity, which include simulated sex.) Even though, as everyone knows, there is hardly any sex stuff on the Interweb, how would something like that even be enforced?

What follows is a confused, albeit amusing, exchange between the Press’ Craig Malisow and Sen. Shapiro. I couldn’t make sense of it, either, but I could find this:

I suppose if you’re a registered sex offender, you shouldn’t have watched that. Sorry about that.

The Senate TxDOT sunset bill is not the House TxDOT sunset bill

May 18th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

As we know, the massive House sunset bill for TxDOT, HB300, contained a boatload of amendments that greatly altered the original bill, including one that would make TxDOT a 15-member elected commission and one that would have outlawed red light cameras. As I suggested, however, the Senate version of this bill would look quite a bit different. Here’s a brief overview of that.

[T]he Senate version laid out in committee this morning (after the House last week passed a version festooned with 177 amendments) does not have the 15-member elected Texas Transportation Commission. It would stick with the current five-member commission appointed by the governor. Mostly. The difference from current law is that the members would have two-year terms and, if the governor didn’t reappoint them or name a new one by Feb. 28 of odd-numbered years, the appointment would then fall to the lieutenant governor.

There are of course myriad other differences, all of them presented in a 70-page “side-by-side-by-side-by-side” that compares current law, the original Senate version, the passed House version and the current Senate version.

Another difference between the House and this Senate version: Red-light cameras would remain legal under the Senate version. The House zapped it. Senate sponsor state Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, said that while he personally opposes red-light cameras, there’s enough support for them among other senators that that’s not something he wants to take on.

As for the key underlying issue — whether TxDOT would be neutered, as in the House version, by giving real power over project decisions to local planning organizations — Hegar said his current version does not do that.

The “legislative oversight committee” for TxDOT recommended by the Texas Sunset Review Commission is different between the two bodies. The House would have an eight-member group of House and Senate members, including the chairs of the transportation, finance and appropriations committees. The Senate version basically uses the existing committee structure, having the House and Senate transportation committees meet as a group once a quarter to look over TxDOT’s shoulder.

So there you have it. It’s still early on, and we haven’t gotten to the conference committee yet, so consider all of this to be written on water until a final bill emerges. Given that the only other bill I knew of to kill red light cameras never made it to the House floor, I’d say the odds are good we’ll have them to kick around for a little longer. But as always, it ain’t over till it’s over.

Whatever Ricky wants

May 18th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

It’s too early to say how much of Rick Perry’s self-proclaimed agenda will get enacted this session, as much of it hinges on the budget reconciliation process as well as on legislation that hasn’t been taken up by one chamber or the other.

Some of his top goals were resupplying the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Emerging Technology Fund, which he uses to create jobs in Texas reward his cronies while making grandiose and unverifiable claims about job creation; changing the state business tax to exempt small companies with less than $1 million in revenue; and approving a voter identification law.

Lawmakers writing the two-year spending plan seemed willing to put money into Perry’s job creation funds, but whether he gets the approximately $500 million combined he wanted for the accounts is far from certain. Lawmakers want more oversight of how the funds’ money is spent. The House, in its version of the state budget, put restrictions on the enterprise fund money to try to force Perry to accept $555 million in federal stimulus money for unemployment benefits.

A House-Senate conference committee is working out a compromise budget plan, so several money items on Perry’s wish list won’t be known until that deal is finally struck.

An increase in the business tax exemption for companies from the current $300,000 to $1 million in revenue won approval in the House but has not made it through the Senate.

The Republican-backed voter identification bill, a highly charged political proposal that would require Texans to show additional ID at the ballot box beyond a voter registration card, won passage in the GOP-dominated Senate after grueling testimony and debate. Odds for the bill are slimmer in the House, where the partisan makeup is almost even.

I made a slight edit to that first paragraph to more accurately reflect the truth of the situation. I have no idea how any of this is going to play out. Recent history has shown that while the House in particular has been willing to take a slap at Perry here and there, in the end the Governor has won a lot more of these staredowns than he’s lost. On the other hand, he doesn’t have Tom Craddick twisting arms for him this time around, and with the miniscule Republican margin, he may just suffer a few setbacks. Bear in mind that as long as Speaker Straus continues the tradition of not voting on legislation, if Rep. Ed Kuempel remains on the sidelines any straight partisan vote will be a tie, on which legislation fails to pass. Voter ID in particular may not be passable now, if Dems stick together. Just whipping Republicans won’t be enough.

There’s another wild card in this, which the article doesn’t discuss, and that’s the possibility of a special session, which some people I’ve spoken to think is inevitable. Rep. Kuempel’s health could be a factor in that as well – if he’s at full strength, that bodes better for the chances of any legislation Perry would push in a special session. The advantage to calling a special session for Perry is that it gives him another 30 days to pander to his base, as well as the chance to pick up any agenda items that fall victim to the calendar. On the other hand, he can’t raise money during a special session, and there’s always the chance he’ll still fail to get stuff passed, thus providing ammunition to KBH. Again, it’s hard to say how this might play out, but the possibility is definitely there, and I’m a bit surprised the story didn’t bring it up.

The fees not paid

May 18th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

The battle over the dueling strip club bills in the Lege this session has mostly been over how much revenue each would collect. But the state has to actually collect that revenue for any of that to be relevant.

Dozens of strip clubs across Texas have ignored a 2007 law requiring them to charge a $5-per-patron entrance fee, potentially costing the state millions of dollars meant to fund sexual assault programs, records show.

Not a dime has yet been used to help the victims of sexual assault.

Since the law went into effect last year, only about $12.2 million has been collected by the state under the law for sexual assault prevention and treatment, far less than the $50 million that had been expected.

“We are, of course, disappointed,” said Annette Burrhus-Clay, executive director of the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault. “But hopefully there will be more resources set aside for the comptroller to actually monitor this in the future.”

For whatever the reason, I don’t recall seeing that $50 million figure before, but it’s right there in the fiscal note to the original bill, so it must just be a case of faulty memory on my part. Having said that, the modified bill filed by Rep. Ellen Cohen was projected to bring in $16.5 million in annual revenue, or about a third as much. I suppose that’s why the $50 million figure surprised me; the difference is so great.

Cohen said she wasn’t surprised that some clubs have ignored the current law, especially in light of the uncertainty created by the court challenge and by the pending legislation.

“If they want to wait and see what’s going to happen, that’s their choice. They may end up having to pay it and penalties — I don’t know,” she said. “I do respect those clubs that have stepped up to the plate and paid.”

[…]

Topless and nude clubs in Houston and San Antonio have remitted about $4.3 million, about a third of the state total, records show.

More than 100 clubs, however, have ignored the fee entirely, while others have paid only small amounts. Some say they don’t want to charge customers more at the door.

Obviously, the court challenge changed things, but I have to ask – what would be the enforcement mechanism for this? I’m guessing a civil suit brought by the Attorney General. I suppose any license renewals, say from the TABC, can be denied pending payment of back taxes as well. Anybody know the answer for sure?

Two for Timothy Cole

May 18th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

On Friday, the House concurred with Senate amendments to HB1736, the Timothy Cole Act that increases compensation to those that have been wrongly convicted. I had said on Monday that it had passed both chambers at that time, but I didn’t realize the Senate had added two amendments that needed House approval. That’s now been done, so unless I’m missing something else, it should now be on its way to Governor Perry’s desk.

Also on Friday, HB498, which creates an Innocence Commission to investigate false convictions and identify reforms to prevent their recurrence, passed the House on third reading. It’s now in the Senate’s hands for final approval. Grits testified in support of this bill on behalf of the Innocence Project of Texas back in March. The commission would be known as the Timothy Cole Innocence Commission, according to a press release I received from Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, the bill’s author. I’ve reproduced the release beneath the fold. All told, I’d say this has been a pretty decent session for criminal justice reform. There’s never enough that gets done, but I get the impression more has been done so far this time than in recent memory. Grits mentions a couple of other worthwhile bills that have made it this far as well.

(more…)

Campaign finance bill passes the House

May 18th, 2009
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

I’ve had plenty of harsh things to say about House Elections Committee Chair Todd Smith this session, but he’s always been one of the good guys on campaign finance reform.

Texas could start regulating how political parties use corporate and union campaign contributions under a bill the Texas House passed Friday 71 to 63.

House Bill 2511 would close what author Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless, has called an “absurd” loophole that enables corporations and labor unions to escape a century-old ban against political donations by funding issue ads that stop short of urging a vote for or against a candidate.

Under the bill, donations from corporations and unions could only go toward a political party’s or political action committee’s administrative costs.

You may recall that a broad definition of just what “administrative costs” are was a key part of the fight over what TAB and TRMPAC did in the 2002 elections, as they had claimed things like polling were “administrative” in nature.

The Texas Pastor Council sent an email blast urging a vote against the bill.

“HB 2511 will censor free speech and drastically change how nonprofit organizations communicate with their supporters about important policy issues,” the group wrote. “This very email could be ruled illegal under this proposed law, prohibiting nonprofits from highlighting elected officials and their bad votes on legislation affecting all Texans.”

Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, said he head received a letter from a host of conservative groups including Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, Texas Eagle Forum and the Texas Alliance for Life that were worried about the bill.

“They are concerned that this will limit their ability to come out and talk about issues,” King said.

If all those folks are against this bill, it must be doing something right. Though HB2511 only got 71 votes to pass, six of them were Republicans – Delwin Jones, Charlie Geren, Will Hartnett, Brian McCall, Tommy Merritt, and Smith; the latter three were coauthors of the bill, along with Rafael Anchia and Mark Strama. Still, I suspect that this won’t make it through the Senate; that two-thirds rule that ol’ Dan Patrick hates so much will surely see to its demise. A previous version of this bill died a messy death in the 2005 Lege amid allegations of partisan sniping at then-Speaker Tom Craddick. I like how now-former Rep. Terry Keel basically tells Tommy Merritt he’ll never eat lunch in this town again in the aftermath of that. Karma sure is a strange thing sometimes.

UPDATE: Burka figures out the reason for the partisan split on this one.