Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Roland Gutierrez

Two 2024 polls

I know, it’s all ridiculously early, but what the heck. Here’s poll #1.

Rep. Colin Allred

The 2024 election is still more than a year out, but a new poll by the University of Texas at Tyler shows Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz with an advantage over his newly announced Democratic challenger, Texas Rep. Colin Allred.

Forty-two percent of respondents said they would vote for Cruz and 37% supported Allred. Seven percent indicated “someone else” and 14% responded “don’t know.”

Twenty percent of respondents said they have a very favorable impression of Cruz, 21% said somewhat favorable, 6% indicated neither, 13% said somewhat unfavorable, 36% indicated very unfavorable and 4% said they don’t know enough. Cruz’s favorability was higher among Republicans. Cruz did better among white respondents than Black respondents.

Eight percent of respondents have a very favorable impression of Allred, 13% said somewhat favorable, 12% indicated neither, 10% said somewhat unfavorable, 9% marked very unfavorable and 48% said they don’t know enough about him.

Allred announced his candidacy on May 3. Besides being a frequent critic of Cruz, Allred, 40, is a former NFL linebacker who played for the Tennessee Titans and was a football standout at Baylor University. He later got a law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, before taking positions in the administration of former President Barack Obama.

Poll data is here and you can make of it what you will. This far out, people just aren’t paying much attention and you’re going to get a lot of non-answers. They did ask some questions about abortion, which I will summarize below.

Do you approve or disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade?


Strongly approve      28
Somewhat approve      14
Somewhat disapprove    9
Strongly disapprove   40
Don't know             9

Are you pleased, upset, or neither that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ruled that abortion laws could be set by each state?


Upset    45
Pleased  30
Neither  24

Should abortion be illegal in all cases, illegal in most cases, legal in most cases, or legal in all cases?


Illegal in all cases   10
Illegal in most cases  33
Legal in most cases    34
Legal in all cases     22

There are some other questions, which get into murkier and more detailed territory, but these are the ones I wanted to focus on. As I have discussed before, I think there’s a real opportunity to make abortion access a winning issue in Texas in 2024. It’s going to take some careful messaging, and there will be a real disconnect between what Democrats mostly want (basically, abortion as available as it was before the 2013 TRAP law that was later struck down was passed) and what the public broadly supports, but I believe it is doable. The fact of the matter is that abortion is basically illegal in all cases now, and this is the mainstream Republican political position both stated and implied, since they did nothing to even tweak the existing laws despite mouthing a few words in that direction last year. Yet that position is extremely unpopular in Texas. There are plenty of reasons for that disconnect, mostly because Republican voters who would prefer to have at least some abortion access keep voting for maximalist candidates. I say some of those people can be persuaded to cross over. We have no choice but to try to get them to do that.

Anyway. Poll #2 is from the Texas Hispanic Policy Forum:

Former President Donald Trump holds a comfortable lead over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis among Texas registered voters who say they might participate in a March 2024 Republican primary, according to new polling from the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation (TxHPF).

In a Texas Republican presidential primary restricted to Trump and DeSantis, 57% of Texas GOP primary voters would vote for Trump and 36% for DeSantis, with 5% undecided and 2% responding that they would not vote if Trump and DeSantis were their only two options. DeSantis announced his long-expected candidacy Wednesday and is the early favorite among several Republican candidates to emerge as Trump’s chief rival for the nomination.

“Donald Trump is the clear Republican frontrunner in Texas for now, but there is a long way to go,” said TxHPF President Jason Villalba. “Texas Republicans regard Trump favorably and he will be difficult to beat for the nomination here, but DeSantis certainly has a base of support upon which he can build. There is also time for other candidates to emerge and make this more than a two-person race for the nomination.”

Four 2024 presidential election scenarios were presented to Texas registered voters: Trump vs. President Joe Biden, DeSantis vs. Biden, Trump vs. Vice President Kamala Harris, DeSantis vs. Harris. Surveys of Texas registered voters tend to be more favorable for Democratic candidates and less favorable for Republican candidates than surveys of likely voters conducted in the months before an election.

  • Trump’s vote intention (44%) surpasses that of Biden (42%) by 2 percentage points. 6% intend to vote for minor party candidates and 8% remain undecided.
  • DeSantis’s vote intention (44%) surpasses that of Biden (42%) by 2 percentage points. 5% intend to vote for minor party candidates and 9% remain undecided.
  • Trump’s vote intention (46%) surpasses that of Harris (39%) by 7 percentage points. 6% intend to vote for minor party candidates and 9% remain undecided.
  • DeSantis’s vote intention (45%) surpasses that of Harris (40%) by 5 percentage points. 5% intend to vote for minor party candidates and 10% remain undecided.

The poll also measured the still-forming contest for the Texas seat in the U.S. Senate now held by Sen. Ted Cruz.

In a March 2024 Democratic Texas U.S. Senate primary featuring U.S. Congressman Colin Allred, State Sen. Roland Gutierrez and former Midland City Council Member John Love, 33% of Democratic primary voters would vote for Allred, 22% for Gutierrez and 4% for Love. 41% of these voters remain undecided.

Cruz leads Allred 47% to 40%, with 9% undecided and 4% voting for minor party candidates in a hypothetical November 2024 race for the Senate. However, Allred is still unknown to many voters; 49% of registered voters do not enough about Allred to have either a favorable or unfavorable opinion about him, while only 6% do not know enough about Cruz to have an opinion about the senator.

“Allred is the early leader among Democrats, but anyone who wins the Democratic nomination will have a difficult race against Cruz,” said Dr. Mark P. Jones, TxHPF Director of Research and Analytics. “It will be critical for the Democratic nominee to introduce themselves to Texans over the course of the next year and make their case for change.”

As with the first poll I don’t want to make too much out of these numbers. We have seen since 2016 that there are some number of Republicans who are willing to cross over to Democrats in some races. That was definitely true with Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020, and it was true for Ted Cruz in 2018. I see no reason why that can’t be the case next year, and you know what my blueprint for that includes. Poll data can be found here.

Two thoughts on the whole impeachment thing

A crook any way you look

Let’s start with the obvious, which is the “Why now?” question. A lot of people seem to be mystified. Why, after nearly a decade of Ken Paxton’s criming, did the House General Investigations Committee decide to go all scorched earth on him now? I’ve seen some theories about it having to do with the federal investigation into Paxton and Nate Paul being taken up by the Justice Department instead of the local US Attorney, with a Twitter thread that I forgot to bookmark speculating that the House signing off on the $3.3 million settlement would somehow make House members complicit in a coverup of Paxton’s activities, since now nothing would or could come out in court. I don’t buy that – it’s not clear to me that the change of venue for the investigation means anything about its ultimate resolution, and I cannot see how any House member could be criminally liable for voting to approve that settlement and payout. If anything, it would be the whistleblowers, who are still pushing for that settlement to be ratified, who would be in danger of obstructing the feds. None of that makes any sense to me.

My best guess, as an amateur Democratic pundit who has spent zero time at the Capitol talking to people, is that it comes down to two things. I was struck by the comment made by Rep. Brian Harrison – who by the way voted against impeaching Paxton – in which he opined that “there are a large number of my colleagues who do not hold the current attorney general in very high regard”. That’s just a background condition, but it sets the stage for everything else. Once the settlement was announced and it was clear that Paxton expected the Lege to pick up the tab for his criming, I think that allowed for the investigation to begin. There was some resistance up front, but it wasn’t too much. Honestly, given the more-than-occasionally petty nature of the Legislature, I think it was when Paxton didn’t bother to address the budget committee himself about the payment that got enough people into a foul mood about the whole thing for the ball to really start rolling.

What I’m saying is this: A lot of Republicans didn’t like Ken Paxton all that much to begin with. I’m sure there are many reasons for that, but let’s accept that as fact and go from there. Those same Republicans probably don’t much care for the big-money interests that support Paxton and tend to be a threat to your typical Republican legislators, who have to deal with the possibility or actuality of those fat cats bankrolling a primary challenger to them and riling up the rubes to harass them and their staff. Taking a shot at Paxton also means sticking it to those people, and I don’t doubt for a minute that was a catalyst. Throw in that request for the $3.3 million, a penny-ante but still annoying and arrogant shit sandwich that they’re being told they need to eat, and now you have a reason for the committee to decide to take a closer look at the Nate Paul situation. Finish it off with a committee made up of people who clearly took the assignment seriously, and here we are. (*)

Am I certain of this explanation? Of course not. I have no way of knowing. But this makes sense to me, and is consistent with what we know. I am open to alternate ideas, and of course any insider information from people who do have real insight. Send me an email with whatever off-the-record dirt you want to share, I’ll be delighted to read it.

The second point I want to discuss is “What is the best possible outcome for the Democrats?” The best possible outcome for society at large is for Paxton to be convicted by the Senate, then arrested by the feds, and eventually convicted in both state and federal court before spending some number of years in jail. You know, being held accountable for his actions and all that. I’m rooting for that, but I’m also rooting for Democrats to maximize their chances of winning elections next year, because the best way to deal with the bigger picture of why the likes of Ken Paxton was able to flourish for so long begins with Democrats winning a lot more political power in this state. What needs to happen to give them that chance next year?

The short answer to that question is for Republicans to be maximally divided amongst themselves, and focusing their anger and rage and money and resources on each other. You may recall that Donald Trump, as well as the slimy insect who chairs the state GOP, are firmly on Team Paxton and have been attacking every Republican who isn’t also in that camp. Trump is attacking Greg Abbott for his silence. This is what we want.

I don’t know if a near future date for a Senate trial or one that is farther out is better for this, but I do prefer there to be a definite time frame, so everyone can get more mad as the date draws near. I can make a case for either a conviction or an acquittal in terms of the political fallout, but either way I want the vote in the Senate to be as close as possible, either 21-10 (or 20-10, if Angela Paxton is recused) for conviction, or a 20-11 failure to convict with Angela Paxton casting the saving vote. Oh, and I want the question of whether or not Angela Paxton casts a vote to be divisive as well, with Dan Patrick trying to get her to recuse and she defiantly rejects him. (Remember, Angela Paxton will be on the ballot in 2024, too.)

If we get that knife’s edge conviction – really, 20-10 with Angela Paxton seething on the sidelines is best – then we not only have Trump and the state GOP and a bunch of its big moneymen mad, with a defenestrated Ken Paxton free to vent his rage at his partymates from the cheap seats, we also have a Greg Abbott-selected AG on the ballot nest year, too. It won’t matter if he selects someone who would be objectively formidable under other circumstances, because now a significant portion of the Republican base hates that person and can focus their sense of aggrievement and betrayal on them. There would surely be a nasty primary, and who knows, maybe an effort to put an independent wingnut on the ballot as well.

Add all this up, and remember that Ted Cruz is also all in on Team Paxton, and maybe that share of Republican voters who don’t want to vote for certain specific Republicans gets a little bigger, while a portion of the hardcore dead-end Trump contingent decides they’ve been stabbed in the back one time too many and they stay home. It wouldn’t take that big a shift to put Joe Biden, Colin Allred/Roland Gutierrez, whoever runs for AG, and perhaps some number of Congressional and Legislative candidates in a winning position next year. It’s a perfect storm.

Now again, am I certain of this? Of course not. Am I maybe wishcasting just a little too hard here? For sure. But is any of this implausible? I don’t think so. A few rolls of the dice have to go well, and of course we need the overall national conditions to be reasonable and for no other earthquakes to strike. It’s also well more than a year away, and as we know that may as well be a million years in political time. I’m just saying, much of this could happen, and if it does I think it works in Democrats’ favor. Just something to think about. Let me know what you think.

(*) Yes, I know, these same legislators are responsible for these conditions that they don’t like, from the moneyed interests to the frothing-at-the-mouth primary voters who are the only ones that count to them. That doesn’t mean that they can’t find a way forward when those conditions work against them for a change.

UPDATE: We have dates now. So that’s good.

A brief Uvalde roundup one year after the massacre

Just a few links for you…

A year after Uvalde’s school massacre, healing remains elusive.

In the year since 19 children and two teachers were killed inside their classrooms at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, the search for healing has been elusive.

Many victims’ relatives have said healing cannot begin without closure. But closure has been impossible, because 12 months later there are still many unresolved questions about what happened that day — most stemming from the failed police response. It took officers an agonizing 77 minutes to enter the classroom and kill the gunman. It was more than an hour during which some of the victims slowly bled to death.

Details about precisely what happened, which victims might have survived if police had acted faster, and why the law enforcement response failed so miserably are the subject of ongoing local, state and federal investigations. Many surviving families are pinning their hopes for closure on their findings. Others are skeptical. But in the meantime, much of the community is suspended in its grief, grasping still for a narrative of what happened on that tragic day, and searching for ways to cope.

A year after the Uvalde school shooting, officers who botched response face few consequences.

In the year since the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde, much of the blame for law enforcement’s decision to wait more than an hour to confront the gunman has centered on the former chief of the school district’s small police force.

But a Washington Post investigation has found that the costly delay was also driven by the inaction of an array of senior and supervising law enforcement officers who remain on the job and had direct knowledge a shooting was taking place inside classrooms but failed to swiftly stop the gunman.

The Post’s review of dozens of hours of body camera videos, post-shooting interviews with officers, audio from dispatch communications and law enforcement licensing records identified at least seven officers who stalled even as evidence mounted that children were still in danger. Some were the first to arrive, while others were called in for their expertise.

All are still employed by the same agencies they worked for that day. One was commended for his actions that day.

For many families of victims in the small Texas town, promises from top state law enforcement and government officials to hold all those responsible for the 77-minute delay in stopping the shooter today feel empty. Instead, they have learned to live alongside officers who faced no repercussions and remain in positions of authority in the community.

The officers shop at the same grocery stores as the families. They umpire weekly softball games. They live in the same neighborhoods. In some cases, they are blood relatives.

“When we see them, they put their heads down,” said Felicha Martinez, whose son was killed in the attack and whose cousin is a police officer who responded to the shooting. “They know they did wrong and wish they could go back and do it over again.”

Hearts In Turmoil: Uvalde Families’ Endless Quest For Gun Control And Answers.

A year ago, an 18-year-old kid with an assault rifle killed nineteen fourth-graders and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. The gunman, Salvador Ramos, massacred the students while officers waited outside for more than an hour before engaging him. It’s been a year since the shooting, and families of the victims are still grieving, whilst fighting for gun control and answers.

The Robb Elementary School shooting is the third-deadliest school shooting in the U.S. after the Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre in 2012 and the Virginia Tech Massacre in 2007.

In this past year, the victim’s families have fought for new restrictions and more transparency, but the government presented resistance to cooperating.

After the shooting, Governor Greg Abbott publicly condemned the massacre, but instead of addressing Texas’ mass shooting problem, he blamed the Uvalde massacre on mental health – while at the same time cutting a lot of mental health spending.

At the state Capitol in Texas, families showed up repeatedly to push a bill that would have raised the age to buy semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21, but the bill barely got a vote and never made it out of committee.

On the front lines of the fight was State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, representing the Uvalde district, who spent the last five months trying to pass bills that would restrict young adults’ access to semi-automatic rifles. Guiterrez’s final attempt -amending another gun bill to raise the minimum age – failed just days before the one-year anniversary of the Robb Elementary massacre.

Texas Sen. Roland Gutierrez of San Antonio, activists blast lawmakers’ inaction on guns.

Gun-control advocates joined State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, at the Texas Capitol to condemn lawmakers’ inaction on a bill that would have raised the minimum age required to purchase a semi-automatic rifle to 21.

Gutierrez, whose district includes Uvalde, championed the proposal and a raft of other gun reforms. He’s argued the measures are necessary after last year’s massacre at Robb Elementary School, in which a shooter claimed the lives of 19 students and two teachers.

Families of those who died at Robb repeatedly pressed the Texas Legislature to pass a proposal this session raising the purchase age for semi-automatic rifles.

“Congratulations, you just told every single Texan and every single visitor to Texas that you don’t give a damn about the families of Uvalde,” Manuel Rizo said at Tuesday’s live-streamed gathering. Rizo is loved one of Jackie Cazares, 9, who died at Robb Elementary.

Uvalde and Santa Fe families, bonded by unthinkable tragedy, unite in Texas gun reform efforts.

Uvalde and Santa Fe are about 315 miles from each other, but these residents are like family. Cross and Hart have spent long nights together trading stories, sharing meals and advocating at the Texas Capitol. They comment on each other’s social media posts and text each other memes.

They are part of a growing group of Texans touched by gun violence, connected by trauma, grief and, in some cases, a new calling to advocate for change.

“Unfortunately, we’re a part of this club that nobody wants to be a part of,” Cross said. “When you have a grief like this, the average person doesn’t understand. You can’t grasp the notion of how much pain that is.”

Santa Fe survivors don’t know everyone in Uvalde, and the same is true in reverse. There’s no “mass shooting phonebook,” Hart said — and she sometimes wishes there was a better way to connect with others across Texas who have been in their shoes: families in El Paso, Sutherland Springs, Midland-Odessa and now Allen.

It’s a network established by meeting at political events or asking around for someone’s number after seeing them in the news, Hart said.

She first connected with Cross and his wife, Nikki, over the phone last June, and they met in person for the first time in August at an Astros game in Houston. The team had invited the Uvalde families out for “Uvalde Strong Day,” so Hart bought a ticket.

Hart met some of the other Uvalde parents that day, too. She talked to Kimberly Garcia, the mother of 10-year-old Amerie Jo Garza, and “instantly connected” with her. Amerie was a Girl Scout, just like Hart’s daughter.

1 year after the tragedy in Uvalde, the memory of the 21 victims lives on.

On May 24, 2022, a gunman killed 19 fourth-graders and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde. It was the worst school shooting in Texas history.

The children loved TikTok and baseball, Pokémon and Starbucks. They had dreams of becoming a lawyer, a veterinarian, a marine biologist, an art teacher, a cop.

The teachers died trying to save their students. One was a “diamond in the rough” who loved CrossFit, running and biking.

Another was a caregiver who supported her family and friends in everything they did. Her husband, a devoted father, died of a heart attack on May 26 after placing flowers at her memorial.

This is who they were.

I had a hard time reading the second to last story. I didn’t even try to read the last one. You can read or not read whichever ones you want. There were many more out there on Wednesday as well. I’m a small bit of hope, a large bit of rage and frustration, and a medium bit of despair about it all.

Previewing Allred vs Gutierrez

I have some thoughts.

Rep. Colin Allred

Since announcing his 2024 Senate campaign, U.S. Rep. Colin Allred has focused his attention on the potential bruising fight against incumbent Republican Ted Cruz.

Before Allred can get to Cruz, however, he’ll likely have to face a significant challenge in the Democratic Party primary.

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez of San Antonio is preparing to challenge Allred for the Democratic Party nomination against Cruz, according to four people with knowledge of his deliberations. Gutierrez, 52, is considering launching his campaign after the Texas’ legislative session concludes on Memorial Day. There could be special sessions that impact the timing of that decision.

Gutierrez has gotten media attention for his gun safety crusade for the victims of the May 24 Uvalde massacre, wants to provide party voters with an alternative.

Other contenders could emerge, including Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, according to numerous Democratic Party sources. Former Midland City Council member John Love is already in the field with Allred.

Let me stop you right there. I have no idea where this “Sylvester Turner” business is coming from. His name has come up before, in the “Other names mentioned” part of the story, and I assume that’s what is happening here as well. Why it is coming up, other than the fact that he’s in his last year as Houston Mayor and he’s a reasonably recognizable name, is the mystery. I’m not going to claim that I know everything there is to know about Sylvester Turner, and I know that even this kind of loose speculation is based on people talking and that never comes completely out of the blue, but I just don’t see this. Please feel free to set me straight if you know something I don’t know.

Also, kudos for the mention of John Love, the first declared Democrat in this race. Now I need to start a campaign to get Heli Rodriguez-Prilliman mentioned as well.

Sen. Roland Gutierrez

Gutierrez did not comment on his political future.

But Colin Strother, a consultant for Gutierrez, said Allred does not have the right message. His comments are an early peek at how Gutierrez could try to contrast himself with Allred.

“Based on everything that [Allred has] said and tweeted, and posted thus far, he’s trying to appeal to Republicans, and he’s citing his work across the aisle and his support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,” Strother said. “The Chamber of Commerce has enough members in the Senate, and I just don’t see base Democrats getting excited to vote for Republican-light.”

Strother added: “The ground is very fertile for a progressive candidate to run.”

Allred, however, comes into a primary contest with broad support. He’s been endorsed by the political arm of the Congressional Black Caucus. Along with being backed for his congressional races by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, he’s been supported by organized labor.

Allred’s campaign did not comment on Strother’s criticism, instead pointing to the congressman’s remarks that he’s focused on defeating Cruz.

Gotta say, it’s a little weird to see Colin Strother associate himself with the “progressive” candidate in a Democratic primary. Politics is a strange place. From where I sit, neither candidate is a “progressive” in the sense that that word is often used in this context. This isn’t going to be a primary about Medicare for all or a national $15 minimum wage. Both candidates have connections to business and energy interests that a Jessica Cisneros type would attack them for, but neither has any bad votes or associations on topics like abortion or LGBTQ issues or (obviously) gun control. If Gutierrez wants to define himself as the more progressive candidate because of his activism on gun control, that’s fine by me and it’s perfectly reasonable strategy. I would just like it if we all kept some perspective on this.

“The way it starts off is Allred has the advantage of probably being able to rely on the African American votes in Dallas and Houston, which is a substantial share of the Democratic primary electorate,” said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University who is studying the race.

“Gutierrez is more likely to be able to appeal to Latinos,” he said, “so the group that will be the decisive group would be liberal Anglos. Where do they go?”

[…]

“Last year, Rochelle Garza cleaned up against Joe Jaworski, though that was partly the male/female dynamic,” said North Texas-based consultant Jeff Dalton, who managed the 2020 Senate campaign of state Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas. He said Garza appealed to Latinos from the Valley and San Antonio and other parts of the state.”

But Gutierrez’s challenge is raising enough money to be able to amplify his message. If he can’t, Allred will drown him out.

“Anybody with a Latino last name in the Democratic primary comes in with a base,” [Democratic strategist Matt] Angle said. “The question is whether or not you could take that and expand upon it.”

Angle added that both candidates, largely unknown outside of their hometowns, will have to build a coalition to win. That means they will have to extend beyond their Black and Latino support.

“You have to build a coalition,” he said.

[…]

Dalton said a competitive primary could help raise the profiles of the contenders and make them better candidates.

“Primaries are not necessarily a bad thing,” Dalton said. “Sometimes a primary can raise attention about the race or help people raise money.”

Most Democrats warn against a bitter fight.

“I hope that people run for only one reason and that is to beat Ted Cruz,” Angle said. “We don’t have the luxury of symbolic campaigns.”

I think we’re all basically in agreement here. Allred started out with a big fundraising haul right after his announcement, which certainly helps him. Gutierrez is dependent on the end of the legislative session to try to reap the same benefit. He has the signature issue, which should help with activist energy. If they’re out there beating the bushes and getting people excited about taking on Ted Cruz, it’s all good.

WaPo says Gutierrez going to challenge Cruz

This is from last week and I don’t see any other stories to this effect, but it’s what we have.

Sen. Roland Gutierrez

Texas state Sen. Roland Gutierrez (D), a longtime lawmaker whose district includes Uvalde, Tex., intends to join the U.S. Senate race to challenge Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) in 2024, according to three people familiar with Gutierrez’s plans who spoke on the condition of anonymity because a formal announcement has not yet been made.

Gutierrez, 52, has served in the Texas state legislature since 2008 and represents the district where a gunman fatally shot 17 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School nearly a year ago. The mass shooting was the second-deadliest to take place at a school in the United States since 2012, when 20 children and six adult staff members were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

The shooting — and Gutierrez’s work with the families of the Uvalde victims afterward to try to enact gun legislation — galvanized the state lawmaker to seriously consider running for higher office, according to a person close to Gutierrez who has been familiar with his thinking over the past year.

“It changes you,” the person said. “Seeing all of that failure, knowing all of that stuff, knowing what the state has purportedly done or not done … and then going into a session and talking to your colleagues and realizing that they still don’t [care]. They are just going to be cowards. And they will sit there and they will cry with the families, but then they won’t do anything.”

Gutierrez would become the second Democrat to join the race, after Rep. Colin Allred (D-Tex.) announced his campaign last week. Texas state law prohibits sitting state lawmakers and other statewide officeholders from accepting campaign contributions during the regular legislative session. This year, the first day Texas lawmakers could accept political contributions would be June 19.

When reached Tuesday, Gutierrez declined to confirm whether he was running.

“The only thing that matters for the next three weeks is fighting for these families,” Gutierrez told The Washington Post. “That’s what I’m focused on right now.”

He added that he would make “decisions on other things” after the Texas legislative session was done.

I noted this story in my earlier post about Rep. Allred getting the “round of introductions” treatment. Sen. Gutierrez himself isn’t saying anything he hadn’t said in a report from late April, but this time we have the “three people familiar with Gutierrez’s plans” speaking for him. As I was saying before the Allred announcement, one does not expect that this sort of thing happens without the full knowledge and approval of the subject, so we have to take it seriously. I don’t see any similar stories out there – I’m a little surprised that the Trib or the Express News hasn’t done something to confirm or deny this – so this is what we have. And we also now have that special session threat from Greg Abbott, which might delay this announcement further. No point in announcing the candidacy if he can’t fundraise off of it. Anyway, this is where we are. Maybe we’ll know more in two weeks, maybe we won’t.

Time for some Colin Allred profiles

The Trib paints him as calm and collaborative, very much the opposite of the dramatic show horse Ted Cruz.

Rep. Colin Allred

U.S. Rep. Colin Allred is gearing up to challenge U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2024 election, and the Democrat’s measured approach poses a sharp contrast to Cruz’s bellicose style.

Allred doesn’t shout during committee hearings or deride those he disagrees with — both signature Cruz moves. He hasn’t made headlines for epic political showdowns, nor has he positioned himself as a leader of an ideological movement.

Colleagues instead describe Allred as level-headed, eager to work across the aisle and accessible to constituents in his Dallas-based district.

“Knowing how to work with everyone, knowing how to listen to people, how to engage, how to come up with solutions, and really, how to bring people together — that’s what leadership is,” said U.S. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, a Houston Democrat whose friendship with Allred grew after both flipped Republican-held seats in 2018. “And frankly, that’s the leadership we need in our state right now.”

Allred’s path to Congress wasn’t typical but has deep roots in his district.

A Dallas native, Allred was born to a single mother who taught in Dallas public schools. The Hillcrest High School football star played for Baylor University on a scholarship before deferring law school for four seasons as an NFL linebacker for the Tennessee Titans beginning in 2007.

After attending law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Allred became a civil rights lawyer and served in the Office of General Counsel for the Department of Housing and Urban Development under then-Secretary Julián Castro, another Texas Democrat.

Allred’s history has been integral to his campaigns and his time in office. He was the first member of Congress to take paternity leave from office and is part of a bipartisan group working to advance paid parental leave legislation.

“I never knew my father, so I made a promise to myself a long time ago that when I became a dad, I would do it right,” Allred said in his campaign announcement video.

[…]

Allred made a mark as an affable colleague shortly after arriving in Congress, according to others who were first elected in 2018. He was selected co-class president in his freshman term, and in his second term was elected to represent early-term candidates to Democratic leadership. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark named him as one of her 10 deputies in December.

U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso, also joined Congress after the 2018 election and said Allred was someone who could “turn down the temperature” in sometimes volatile internal discussions on gun safety legislation and trade agreements with Canada and Mexico.

“Colin was always a voice of reason, a voice of commonsense solutions, but also someone whose input was always very strategic and thoughtful,” Escobar said. “The Democratic Caucus is definitely a big tent, and we have very diverse views.”

There’s more, and they eventually get into what a huge douchebag Cruz is (they used slightly more delicate language) and how Allred will attack him for it. Allred is likeable but not well know, gets stuff done, reaches across the aisle, etc etc etc. You may wonder how any of this will get him votes, but we have four elections’ worth of evidence now showing that some number of Republican voters will not vote for certain Republican candidates in statewide races, and Ted Cruz is definitely one of them. Allred will need maximal Democratic turnout and enough of those “I’m not voting for Ted Cruz” Republicans to have a shot.

In the meantime, the Washington Post is reporting that State Sen. Roland Gutierrez still “intends” to run for Senate as well. I don’t have a WaPo subscription, I’m getting this from the Daily Kos morning digest for Thursday. I’m fine with there being a contested primary – it’s never too early to start campaigning in earnest – but we’ll see. Gutierrez is still saying he’ll make an announcement after the Legislative session ends on May 29.

Reactions to Allen

There’s nothing I can say about the weekend massacre in Allen that hasn’t been said many times by many people. My heart is broken for the victims and their families, and my rage is ever-stoked by the sheer indifference exhibited by our so-called leaders. I just have a couple of things to note here in partial response.

Uvalde families have another reason to be angry.

Democrats and relatives of Texas mass shooting victims lambasted the state’s GOP leaders over the weekend after they again rejected gun restrictions in the wake of another massacre.

A gunman wielding what appeared to be an assault-style rifle killed eight people on Saturday afternoon at Allen Premium Outlets, a mall in a suburb about 20 miles north of Dallas. He injured seven others, three of whom are in critical condition. The victims included children as young as 5.

The shooting occurred less than a week after sheriff’s deputies in San Jacinto County reported that a lone gunman armed with an AR-15-style weapon killed five people at a neighbors’ house.

Republicans expressed grief over the mall shooting, offering prayers and condolences to families who lost loved ones. They praised law enforcement for responding and killing the shooter quickly, but they did not address the weapon he used.

​​”They don’t have any answers to this,” said Manuel Rizo, who lost his 9-year-old niece, Jacklyn “Jackie” Cazares, in last year’s mass shooting at a Uvalde elementary school.

The attack at Robb Elementary was also carried out by a lone gunman armed with an assault-style rifle. The shooter bought his gun days after he turned 18, prompting calls from victims’ families to raise the age for purchasing the weapons in Texas. Republican state lawmakers have declined.

“They’re just going to ignore the facts, issue their thoughts and prayers, go through their checklist and hope that this goes away,” Rizo said.

I get emails from the Dallas Morning News with daily digests and breaking news and stuff like that. Here are the contents of two of those breaking news alerts on Monday. First one:

The Houston office of the South Korean consulate confirmed Monday that Cho Kyu Song, 37, Kang Shin Young, 35, and their child were killed. The child’s age was not immediately clear.

According to a letter from New Song Church, based in Carrollton, a 5-year-old child of the couple survived. The child was injured and was being treated at a hospital, South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency reported.

And the second one:

A security guard, an engineer, 3 children among the Allen mall shooting victims

Two Cox Elementary students, fourth-grader Daniela Mendoza and second-grader Sofia Mendoza, were killed Saturday.

Their mother, Ilda, remains in critical condition, according to an email from Wylie ISD Superintendent David Vinson.

Here’s a profile of the victims from the Trib. Just so we all know who we’re talking about here. Who we’re losing every time one of these mass shootings happens.

Later in the day, we got this news.

In a surprise move days after the Allen mall shooting and hours before a key legislative deadline, a Texas House committee on Monday advanced a bill that would raise the age to purchase certain semi-automatic rifles.

The bill faces an uphill climb to becoming state law, but the vote marked a milestone for the proposal that relatives of Uvalde shooting victims have been pushing for months.

Several relatives of children who were killed in the Robb Elementary School shooting last year sobbed when the committee voted 8-5 to send it to the House floor. Republican state Reps. Sam Harless and Justin Holland joined with Democrats on the House Community Safety Select Committee to advance the bill.

Less than two hours earlier, some of the relatives of Uvalde victims had urged the committee chair, Rep. Ryan Guillen. R-Rio Grande, to give House BIll 2744 a vote before a key deadline Monday.

“One year ago today, my daughter had her communion. About a month later she was buried in that same dress,” Javier Cazares, whose 9-year-old daughter Jacklyn was killed in the Uvalde shooting, said during an emotional press conference. “Mr. Guillen, and anybody else who is stopping this bill from passing, sad to say but more blood will be on your hands.”

Monday marks the last day House bills can be voted out of committee in the lower chamber. House bills that don’t meet that deadline face increasingly difficult odds at becoming law, though there are some avenues through which measures left in committees could be revived.

HB 2744, filed by Democratic Rep. Tracy King, whose district includes Uvalde, was debated before the House select committee last month during a hearing in which relatives of Uvalde victims shared emotional accounts of lives torn asunder by gun violence.

Monday’s legislative deadline falls two days after a gunman in Allen, a Dallas suburb of about 100,000 people, killed eight shoppers at an outdoor mall with AR-15-style rifle — the same type of weapon used by the gunman in Uvalde, where killed 19 children and two teachers were killed.

Because the man identified as the gunman in Allen was 33, raising the age limit for semi-automatic rifle purchases likely wouldn’t have kept that gunman from purchasing such a weapon. But Saturday’s shooting renewed calls for tightening some gun laws in a state whose lawmakers have loosened firearm restrictions despite repeated mass shootings.

That is true. You know what else is true? None of the false promises made by Greg Abbott about “mental health”, and none of the faux-security “school hardening” bills – you know, the ones that put more restrictions on doors than on guns, those bills – would have done anything to deter this shooter, either. It’s going to take an actual commitment to address the problem, and that begins with having a government in place that sees these shootings as problems. See what I mean about there not being anything to say that hasn’t been said before?

This Twitter thread takes you through the action yesterday that led to the committee vote on HB2744. Here’s a quote for you:

Rep. Guillen, who chairs the House Select Committee on Community Safety where HB 2744 is pending, just told reporters he is now considering having a vote on the bill. When asked what changed, he said “Nothing”.

That’s turncoat Republican Ryan Guillen speaking there. I have nothing at this point, either. Even if this bill makes it out of the House, there’s no way Dan Patrick gives it a vote in the Senate. High marks for trying, but the problem is bigger than this. DAily Kos has more.

UPDATE: Received the following statement in my inbox from Asian Texans for Justice:

“Instead of supporting what we’re asking for – gun safety legislation which 83% of AAPIs support, Texas statewide leaders are blaming mental health alone. The reality is that our state’s lax gun laws allowed someone who sympathizes with Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists to easily get a gun and kill and injure over a dozen people. We need the state legislature to take immediate action on gun reform that will make our communities safer, such as passing HB 2744, which would increase the age to buy a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21.

Asian Texans for Justice calls on local law enforcement to exhaust all measures to determine whether the gunman was truly a lone actor or if he worked in concert with other individuals or organizations who aided and abetted these horrendous actions.

We urge Governor Abbott and the Texas Legislature to focus their priorities on issues that better serve Asian and Pacific Islander Texans, and keep all Texans safe.”

I agree.

Allred confirms he is in for Senate

Let’s go.

Rep. Colin Allred

U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, D-Dallas, announced Wednesday he is challenging U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, for reelection.

The third-term congressman made the announcement in a three-minute video posted on social media. The video touted Allred’s life story and congressional record — and took multiple shots at Cruz, including over his role leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection and the trip to Cancun during the 2021 winter freeze.

“We deserve a senator whose team is Texas,” said Allred, a former NFL player. “Ted Cruz only cares about himself — you know that.”

Allred had been considering a campaign for months, and the launch was no surprise after it leaked out earlier this week that his announcement was imminent.

Allred’s campaign begins as an uphill battle. A Democrat hasn’t won a statewide election in Texas since 1994, and while Cruz’s 2018 reelection race against Beto O’Rourke was surprisingly tight, Democrats have not been able to replicate such a close contest since then.

“Some people say a Democrat can’t win in Texas,” Allred said in the video, which partly focused on his upbringing from the son of a single mother to NFL player. “Well, someone like me was never supposed to get this far.”

[…]

Allred is likely to face primary competition. State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, is likely to run but not expected to make any announcement until after the current legislative session, which ends May 29.

Allred has to give up his U.S. House seat to run against Cruz. It was made safe for Democrats during the 2021 redistricting process, and there will be no shortage of candidates for it in the Democrat-dominated Dallas area.

Allred’s launch video drew clear battle lines against Cruz, starting with the Jan. 6 insurrection when supporters of former President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol in protest of his reelection loss. Allred said Cruz “cheered on the mob and then hid in a supply closet when they stormed the Capitol.”

“That’s Ted for you — all hat, no cattle,” Allred said.

The video also promoted Allred’s bipartisan credentials. He said he has “worked with Republicans” on issues related to veterans, trade and semiconductor manufacturing. The video included multiple shots of Allred appearing with a GOP colleague from North Texas, Rep. Jake Ellzey. They have teamed up a bill to authorize Veterans Affairs construction projects, including in Texas.

See here for the previous update about Allred, and here for the earlier news about Sen. Gutierrez. Maybe there will be a contested primary, and maybe Sen. Gutierrez will decide that he doesn’t need to run after all. We’ll find out soon enough. I’m delighted to have Rep. Allred in the race – I will also be delighted with Sen. Gutierrez if that’s how this ends up – and I look forward to him giving a strong fight to Ted Cruz. He’s an underdog to be sure, and I hope someday to understand what his thought process was, but he can win. Go get ’em. Daily Kos has more.

(I expect we will see an article about who will run for the now-open CD32 in very short order. In all the prior reporting about Allred’s likely Senate run, that subject never came up, so offhand I don’t have any names for this. But I’m sure more than one person has been giving this matter a lot of thought. We’ll know who those folks are pretty quickly, I expect.)

Allred reportedly set to announce a challenge to Cruz

Well, well, well.

Rep. Colin Allred

Democratic Rep. Colin Allred is planning to announce a run against Sen. Ted Cruz as soon as this week, according to two people familiar with his plans.

A former NFL player-turned-civil rights attorney, Allred has been quietly prepping for a run against Cruz for months. During his two successful reelection bids since ousting an entrenched incumbent in 2018, Allred has proven a prolific fundraiser. He’s well-liked within the Democratic Caucus and has also picked up positions in leadership, now serving as a member of House Minority Whip Katherine Clark’s (D-Mass.) team and as previously part of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) expansive leadership team.

Allred won his suburban Dallas House seat in 2018, unseating Rep. Pete Sessions — a former House Rules Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee chair who later returned to the House after running in a different district.

After 2020’s redistricting, Allred’s district became safely Democratic, meaning he could likely hold his current seat for as long as he chooses. His decision to give it up to run for Senate instead, in a state where his party has struggled to win statewide, sets up a potentially high-profile general election race next fall.

Cruz, now serving his second term in the Senate, faced a tougher-than-expected challenge from then-Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) in 2018. Though O’Rourke lost by about 2.6 percentage points, the former House member developed a national profile that he parlayed into an unsuccessful 2020 presidential run.

Allred may well follow O’Rourke’s model. Even if he doesn’t win, he will raise his political cachet with a 2024 run against Cruz — giving himself national exposure and building a massive donor list.

It’s a short story, which does not mention the previous reporting that State Sen. Roland Gutierrez is also preparing to announce his candidacy against Cruz. As with that, one must retain some discretion until one hears it from the candidate’s mouth – Sen. Gutierrez later said that he’ll address his situation after the legislative session – but also as with the Gutierrez story, one has to assume that this didn’t get to a reporter without the full knowledge of the man in question. This could make the 2024 primary a lot more interesting in Texas.

Allred is a strong fundraiser and would start out with a significant financial advantage over Gutierrez, enough so that if he walks back that earlier story it would not shock me. He’ll need to step it up another notch or two to take on Cruz, but I feel confident he can do that. If nothing else, this may be the most realistic takeover opportunity for Dems in their bad Senate cycle year. We’ll find out soon enough. The Trib, which does note the existence of Sen. Gutierrez’s interest in the race, has more.

What does abortion as a political issue really look like in Texas now?

In my earlier post about what the likely Biden/Trump rematch looks like in Texas, I said that abortion really wasn’t tested here as a political issue in 2022. I said I’d like to see it be a real focus for next year, if only to get an answer to that question. It was this tweet that got me thinking along those lines.

It’s great that NBC News has this deep archive of polling data, especially since they’ve asked the same question, which allows for direct comparisons. The shift over time is indeed striking. It’s important to remember, however, that believing abortion should be legal “most of the time” is likely not incompatible with a 15-week ban, as proposed by Sen. Lindsay Graham, in the minds of many voters. There are of course major issues with such a ban, beginning with the fact that most conditions that cause fetal death and serious health risks for the mother cannot be detected until several weeks after that artificial deadline. There’s also the critical question of availability, especially in states that would continue to have other restrictions like wait times and requiring multiple office visits, all of which contribute to having fewer clinics and running out the clock on many women who don’t live near them. I do not expect that anyone who is currently mad about Dobbs and the continued crusade by the zealots to expand it further would be fooled by this proposal. But it’s a reminder that not only is how a poll is worded very important, it’s also the case that however you do word it, people will interpret what it means their own way. Getting at how people understand what the wording means, and what the consequences of their preferred interpretations may be, is incredibly difficult.

A few days after that tweet, Politifact in the DMN did its own study of national opinion on abortion.

Every year, the pollster Gallup asks people about their satisfaction with aspects of American life. Respondents saying they are “very dissatisfied” with “the nation’s policies regarding the abortion issue” have spiked somewhat.

In 2021, 30% of survey respondents said they were “very dissatisfied” on abortion policy. In 2022, the share rose to 41%, and in 2023, it rose to 48%. (As recently as 2014, the share saying this was as low as 19%.)

This finding is broadly echoed in polling by Quinnipiac University that was completed at shorter intervals before and after Roe was overturned.

In May 2021, 57% of respondents told Quinnipiac that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% said abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. But Quinnipiac’s most recent survey, from February 2023, found 64% saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 29% said abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

This shift has also been seen in some state-level polling. In Arkansas, which has some of the nation’s strictest abortion laws, the percentage of respondents to the Arkansas Poll saying that it should be “more difficult” to get an abortion dropped from 50% to below 30% from 2020 to 2022, while the share saying it should be “easier” showed the reverse pattern, climbing from about 13% to 32%, said Janine Parry, director of the Arkansas Poll at the University of Arkansas.

However, polling in Wisconsin shows less dramatic shifts.

Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School Poll, said he has “not seen much change” across multiple questions his polling operation has asked in national polls.

For instance, from September 2021 to September 2022 — a period spanning the time before and after the Supreme Court’s ruling — the Marquette poll asked about overturning Roe. (Before the decision, the question was posed about a potential future decision overturning Roe; afterward, the question involved the decision itself.)

Excluding respondents who said they didn’t know anything about a potential or actual decision, the percentage of respondents who opposed it fell modestly, from 72% to 67%, while the percentage that had heard of the decision and supported it rose equally modestly, from 28% to 33%.

Still, these figures showed that respondents favored the abortion-rights position by about a 2-1 margin in a politically competitive state.

And national polling data from the Democratic firm Navigator also shows a general dissatisfaction with the Republican position on abortion, said Margie Omero, a principal with the Democratic research firm GBAO. Asked whether they “approve or disapprove of how Republicans in Congress are handling” abortion policy, 35% approved, compared to 56% who disapproved.

Different polls, different wording, but the overall trend is similar. Again, though, you have to consider what people might have understood the question to mean. Some number of those “very dissatisfied” people could be the forced birth zealots who are upset that overturning Roe didn’t mean that abortion is banned everywhere. In Arkansas, where the laws are so drastic, there’s little room for “more difficult”. Surely some of the people who used to want it to be more difficult now think it’s just right, and some of those thinking it should be easier are just thinking in terms of rape/incest/health of the mother exceptions. While clearly some people are more pro-choice than before, it’s hard to say how many, and how important it is to them.

Now again, all that said, the overall trend across multiple polls, as well as the objective evidence of the 2022 election and abortion referenda in states like Kansas and Kentucky and Montana, strongly suggest that the pro-choice position is the more popular, and the extremist stance now being touted by most Republicans is a loser, while no one buys their soggy attempts at “moderation”. It stands to reason, as we have seen in Presidential horse race polls, that the national shift implies related shifts across the states. And that brings us to Texas.

There is polling data for Texas. The Texas Politics Project has polling data that goes back to 2008. The problem is that they vary the questions from poll to poll, so direct comparisons are tricky. There are a couple of close-enough points we can look at. For example, from July 2008:

Do you believe that abortion should be:

29% generally available
15% more limited
35% illegal except in cases of rape/incest/to save the life of the mother
17% never permitted
5% Don’t know/refused/NA

Who knows what “generally available” and “more limited” mean, especially since the third choice is fairly limited. However you want to look at it, the mostly-to-all-illegal positions are a majority. Now here’s October 2018:

What is your opinion on the availability of abortion?
15% By law, abortion should never be permitted.
29% The law should permit abortion only in case of rape, incest or when the woman’s life is in danger.
12% The law should permit abortion for reasons other than rape, incest, or danger to the woman’s life, but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established.
39% By law, a woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice.
5% Don’t know

I couldn’t begin to tell you what “only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established” means, but given the rest of that question it seems to be about abortion being somewhat more accessible than just the rape/incest/health of the mother exceptions. If we count that as a “generally available” option, then the pro-choice position is now in the majority. Note that at the time this was conducted, we were still more than three years away from the Dobbs decision.

In October 2022, we get a chart summarizing the course of one particular question:

Do you think that abortion laws in Texas should be made more strict, less strict, or left as they are now?


         Stricter  As now  Less strict  DK/NA
=============================================
Oct 2022       18      25           50      8
Aug 2022       20      21           49     10
Feb 2022       23      23           43     12
Apr 2021       33      22           33     11
Feb 2021       32      18           37     13
Feb 2019       41      20           32      8
Jun 2013       38      21           26     14

Two things to keep in mind here. One is that between April 2021 and February 2022, the Lege passed the vigilante bounty hunter law SB8, which had the effect of making surgical abortion basically illegal and almost completely unavailable. That also means that before then, the “as it is now” option was technically a pro-choice one, while after SB8 it’s an anti-abortion one. In reality, given the widespread closures of clinics after the passage of HB2 in 2013 – you remember, the omnibus anti-abortion bill that was aimed at making it extremely difficult for clinics to operate, the bill that was famously filibustered by Wendy Davis – the “as now” choice was more likely to be favored by those who preferred a strict regime, just because – as noted above – on a practical level abortions were hard to access, especially outside the big urban areas. Vibes-wise, it was mostly anti-abortion before 2021, and definitely anti-abortion after 2021.

With all that said, you can see the clear shift after the passage of SB8. The “less strict” number jumped ten points in less than a year, and was up by 17 points in a year and a half. By August 2022, which is now post-Dobbs, the “less strict” answer is a majority (okay, almost in August but there in October). The trend is there.

Still, there are reasons to be cautious about this. In October 2014 (scroll to page 15) and February 2023 (page 32), the poll gives various specific scenarios for when an abortion might be legal or illegal, which mostly break down to the rape/incest/health of the mother situations and discretionary, abortion-on-demand situations. In both years, there’s a clear distinction between the former, which generally has strong support, and the latter, where support is at best a plurality, and even then comes with limits.

The interpretation I have for this is that poll respondents are broadly sympathetic to women who “need” abortions, but less so – sometimes much less so – to women who “want” abortions. That’s going to make the messaging for this super challenging, with vagueness likely to be the best strategy. The key difference between now and, say, 2014, when Republicans gleefully clubbed Wendy Davis over the head for her pro-choice positions, is exactly that the facts on the ground have changed. People are more likely to understand that women who “need” abortions simply cannot get them in Texas, and that this is harmful to them. That opens the door, but how much that door can swing past the “rape/incest/health of the mother” milestone is a question I can’t answer. As I’ve been saying, I strongly believe we need to test this, but I fully acknowledge that it won’t be easy to do and there are downsides if we fail. I just don’t think there’s any other way forward.

Anyway, this is my manifesto for 2024. I welcome your feedback.

April 2023 campaign finance reports – Congress

And so we begin another Congressional campaign fundraising cycle. For obvious reasons, the opening list of who’s raising what for which office is a lot smaller than it’s been recently, though I do expect this list to grow a bit going forward. Here are the names and numbers of interest at this time:

Heli Rodriguez-Prilliman – Senate
John Love – Senate

Lizzie Fletcher – CD07
Pervez Agwan – CD07
Sheila Jackson Lee – CD18
Francine Ly – CD24
Henry Cuellar – CD28
Colin Allred – CD32


Dist  Name             Raised      Spent    Loans    On Hand
============================================================
Sen   R-Prilliman      21,497     20,107   29,062      1,389
Sen   Love             44,861     45,764    6,015        352

07    Fletcher        266,678    141,909        0  1,446,476
07    Agwan           100,500     18,107        0     82,393
18    Jackson Lee      16,491     61,881        0    249,832
24    Ly               11,633        385    2,540     11,247
28    Cuellar         512,858    166,829        0    393,772
32    Allred          522,135    271,177        0  2,239,859 

Starting at the top, I found the Facebook page for Heli Rodriguez-Prilliman, which had a post about a February meet and greet event for her. That’s the extent of my knowledge; if someone knows anything more, please leave a comment. We know about John Love. There were a couple of other names that popped up on the FEC site but none had reported any money raised. Neither Love nor Rodriguez-Prilliman had raised much, but it was greater than zero so they get to be on the list.

Rep. Lizzie Fletcher managed to avoid any primary challengers last year, but for 2024 Pervez Agwan has thrown his hat into the ring. He starts off with a decent amount raised, though he obviously has a ways to go to catch up.

I’m going to keep an eye on Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and CD18 here because someone may decide to not wait for the results of the Mayor’s race to declare a candidacy for this seat, and because until the July fundraising deadline comes around this is what we know about her campaign cash situation. As I said, she’s never been a moneybags, but I expect that to change at least for this election. And if an interested contender or two show up here in the next few months, they may stick around even if she ends up remaining in Congress.

Francine Ly, whose campaign URLs include the very cool moniker “FLy4Texas”, is first up in CD24, which as you know is the district I’m most interested in. I’m very interested to see how it performs in this upcoming Presidential year.

I don’t really want to have to keep up with what Rep. Henry Cuellar is doing, but as long as there’s the possibility of another big money primary race in CD28, I guess I have to. He sure did deplete his resources last time around.

As for Rep. Colin Allred, who may or may not be a Senate candidate next year, he’s a capable fundraiser and he’s got a decent piece of change in his coffers already. Ted Cruz is out there raising money, and has about a million bucks cash on hand advantage. If Allred challenges Cruz, I’d expect him to at least equal him in fundraising. I’ll keep an eye on him as we wait for that decision. (NOTE: This post was drafted before the news that Sen. Roland Gutierrez was planning to run for Senate. This doesn’t change anything now, but it may affect how Rep. Allred fundraises going forward, whether or not he gets into the Senate race.)

No one raising any money yet in CD15, but that will surely change soon. No one raising any money yet in CD23 either, which has got to be a first in a long time.

I may look at some Republican reports later, if and when it becomes clear that there are challengers who are capable of raising competitive amounts. Until then, this is what I have. Let me know what you think.

Sen. Gutierrez talks about 2024

He’s officially still thinking about it and will announce after the session. I’d say it’s a strong bet he’s already decided to run.

Sen. Roland Gutierrez

State Senator Roland Gutierrez said Wednesday he’s going to wait before deciding on running for U.S. Senate. If he jumps in the race, the South Texas Democrat would be challenging incumbent Republican Ted Cruz.

It was six years ago that Cruz faced El Paso Congressman Beto O’Rourke at the ballot box. The Democrat came close to defeating Cruz, but the Republican held on with 50.9 percent of the vote.

Today political watchers are wondering if Cruz is still vulnerable to a strong challenger, especially after Cruz’s role in the Jan 6th attempt to stop the counting of the Electoral College votes.

[…]

Gutierrez has not ruled out running for Senate but he said a decision on challenging Cruz in the 2024 election is going to have to wait because he’s focused on the current Texas legislative session. And he’s particularly concerned with the issues connected to the Uvalde school shooting.

“I got to be 100 percent focused on the next five weeks. And gotta do what I can do for these families. My future we’ll figure all those things later down the road,” he said.

Gutierrez said when the session ends — which is in about five weeks — he will then consult with his family before making a decision to enter the race.

See here for the background. The middle of the story is about Cruz admitting to his complicity in the 2020 insurrection, which wasn’t exactly a secret but never hurts to remember. I obviously don’t know for sure that Sen. Gutierrez will run, though I do believe he will, but if he does he’ll give Cruz a good fight. And he won’t have to give up his seat to make the race, which I’m sure is a factor in his decision as well. I’ll be ready to make a donation when he makes it official.

On the (likely) future Biden/Trump matchup

It’s way too early to pay any attention to state polling, but there are a few general principles to discuss here.

President Joe Biden announced his reelection bid on Tuesday, setting up a potential rematch with former President Donald Trump — two candidates most Texas voters have said should not run again.

Biden’s pitch, made in a 3-minute video, seemed tailored to a Texas audience as the president focused on a slew of issues Republicans in the state have prioritized, including outlawing abortion, restricting LGBTQ rights and banning books.

“Around the country, MAGA extremists are lining up to take those bedrock freedoms away,” Biden said in his announcement video. “Cutting Social Security that you’ve paid for your entire life while cutting taxes for the very wealthy, dictating what health care decisions women can make, banning books, and telling people who they can love — all while making it more difficult for you to be able to vote.”

“The question we are facing is whether in the years ahead we have more freedom or less freedom, more rights or fewer,” he said.

But the president heads into 2024 with a lot of ground to make up with Texas voters, 43 percent of whom had a very unfavorable view of Biden in the latest polling by the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin.

And former President Donald Trump, who has dominated polling in the GOP primary, is just as unpopular in Texas, with 42 percent saying he is very unfavorable.

Sixty one percent of Texas voters, meanwhile, said Biden should not run, while 58 percent said the same of Trump, according to the poll, which was released in February.

Still, Biden fared better in Texas in 2020 than any Democratic presidential candidate in years, losing the state to Trump by just 6 percentage points.

[…]

Biden likely got a boost in 2020 from independent voters who had a very negative view of Trump. They now have a worse impression of Biden, with 54 percent of independents seeing him as very unfavorable, compared to 42 percent who said the same of Trump.

While few think Biden will actually win the state in 2024, whether or not he can improve on his past performance largely depends on who else is on the top of the ticket, said Joshua Blank, research director at the Texas Politics Project.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, who narrowly won reelection over Democrat Beto O’Rourke in 2018 and faces a 46-percent disapproval rate in the state, is also seeking reelection. His campaign could have an impact, depending on the quality of the Democratic candidate challenging Cruz, who would likely be the primary focus of Democratic effort in Texas, Blank said.

“I think a fair case could be made that GOP congressional and Texas legislative candidates might perform better with someone besides Trump and Cruz leading the ticket,” Blank said. “Biden might find Texas a greater challenge facing a GOP candidate other than Trump who doesn’t carry the same baggage as the former president — and someone who he hasn’t already beaten, at least nationally.”

I don’t take the “shouldn’t run again” numbers too seriously, for either candidate. Biden’s overall popularity among Dems is high, and I feel confident that when the choice becomes “Biden or Trump”, he’ll have no trouble getting Dems in line. I mostly think the same for Trump, though he has much bigger potential pitfalls in front of him, nearly all of which will be faced in a courtroom. Biden’s main areas of concern are his age, the potential that he could backslide on issues Dems care about, and not being seen as putting up enough of a fight against Republican malfeasance and creeping authoritarianism. He’s striking the right notes for now, and as long as he stays on that path I feel pretty good about what’s ahead.

A big unanswered question for me is how the abortion issue will play in Texas in 2024. While its largely positive-for-Dems effect in 2022 in other states is well known, it really wasn’t tested as an issue here. The 2022 election was much more about the grid and (in the wake of Uvalde) guns. I don’t have any criticism of that – those were super salient issues, ones on which the Republicans should have been plenty vulnerable – but they didn’t work as we would have liked them to work. The scenario I hope for, both from the Biden campaign and from the campaign of the Democratic nominee for Senate, whether Roland Gutierrez (not yet confirmed, for what it’s worth) or Colin Allred or someone else, is basically a promise to restore Roe v Wade, with extra language to head off the more recent attempts to curtail abortion access (in other words, codify what was in the Hellerstedt decision) and a ban on bounty hunter civil suits. This also requires winning back the House and having enough Senators willing to nuke the filibuster, but you have to start by setting the stakes, and doing this sure does make flipping the Ted Cruz seat that much more of a prize.

Will this work? I mean, we have over 30 years of results to suggest that the odds are against it, but it would give plenty of people – including, I would think, independents and the kind of Republicans that have been pretty reliably crossing over in some number of races since 2016 – a reason to turn out and support Dems at the top of the ticket. It would be nice to have everyone pulling in the same direction, and who knows, it might mean some real national investment in these races. Like I said, we’ll remain the underdogs, but it’s at least a coherent vision. That’s better than what we’ve usually had.

Sen. Gutierrez appears to be getting set to challenge Ted Cruz

Very interesting.

Sen. Roland Gutierrez

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, a San Antonio Democrat who has become a fierce champion of the families impacted by the Uvalde school shooting, is likely to run against Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in 2024, The Texas Tribune has learned.

One source close to Gutierrez said he is “very likely” to run, while another said there is “no question he is seriously looking at it.” Gutierrez is not expected to make any announcements about the race until after the current legislative session, which ends late next month.

Gilbert Garcia, a columnist for the San Antonio Express-News, first reported Wednesday morning that Gutierrez is “nearly certain” to run.

The two sources close to Gutierrez declined to be named because they were not authorized to publicly discuss his deliberations. Gutierrez also declined to comment.

Cruz’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, D-Dallas, is also considering running against Cruz, who has shifted focus to his reelection campaign in recent months after flirting with another presidential bid.

Gutierrez has served in the Texas Senate since 2021 after previously serving over a decade in the House. His Senate seat is not on the ballot again until 2026, meaning he would not have to give it up to challenge Cruz next year.

The Uvalde massacre happened inside his district, killing 19 children and two teachers, and Gutierrez has dedicated himself this legislative session to trying to address it despite GOP leaders’ resistance to considering any new gun restrictions. He has held several news conferences with families of victims and clashed with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick over the issue on the Senate floor.

Gutierrez got his biggest victory yet Tuesday when a House committee held a hearing on a slate of gun bills, including one that would raise the minimum age to purchase certain semi-automatic rifles.

This kind of comes out of left field. Sen. Gutierrez has been mentioned in various “who could run against Cruz” stories, but mostly in passing, in the “other names that have been mentioned” category in articles that focused on Julian Castro or Colin Allred. Indeed, in at least some stories in which Allred is touted as the likely candidate, Sen. Gutierrez isn’t mentioned at all. I don’t think there’s one correct way to road test a possible candidacy, but it’s fair to say that if this is for real, Gutierrez took a different path than Allred has.

That’s assuming Allred is still a potential candidate. We’ve discussed all the reasons why it would make more sense for him to stay put, at least until Texas becomes Democratic enough to not have to run as a distinct underdog. It’s one thing to give up your safe Congressional seat for an odds-against shot at Ted Cruz when you know you’ll be the nominee. It’s another thing altogether if you have to win a primary against a strong opponent first. The fact that Gutierrez, like Royce West in 2020, can run without ceding his current position is a big advantage for him. I won’t say this will put an end to the Allred speculation industry, but it certainly changes the calculus.

It must be noted that at this point in time, Allred has a significant financial edge over Gutierrez. I’ve got a Q1 Congressional finance reports post in the works, and Rep. Allred has about $2.3 million on hand after raising over $500K. Sen. Gutierrez has $309K on hand as of January, and can’t do any more fundraising until the session is over. If there are special sessions, that also puts his fundraising on hold. It would not be a surprise to see him get a surge of donations in whatever post-session days of May and June there are, but he has a ways to go to catch up.

Anyway. Sen. Gutierrez would be a fine candidate. He has been true to his word to be an advocate for Uvalde on sensible gun control measures, and that would surely be a centerpiece of his campaign against Cruz. As is always the case, I will want to hear the words from his own mouth before I commit to the belief that he’s running, but this is a strong clue.

There was a Trib story from a couple of weeks ago about the 2024 Senate race, mostly focused on Cruz, that I had in my drafts but hadn’t published. I’ve repurposed that post for this one, and you can find the original beneath the fold. Note the absence of any mention of Sen. Gutierrez in the piece, or at least in what I had highlighted from it.

(more…)

A brief but dismal legislative update

Just a few recent news stories, to give you an idea of what’s happening in the Legislative session, and why I have been avoiding it.

Item 1:

Republican Texas senators on Monday reversed themselves and voted against allowing transgender kids currently being treated with puberty blockers and hormone therapy to continue receiving such care.

That reversal essentially expanded Senate Bill 14’s proposed ban on transition-related care to include all transgender children — as outlined in the legislation’s original version. The chamber voted 19-12 along party lines Tuesday to give final approval to the broader version of the bill, which is priority legislation for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. SB 14 will now advance to the House.

Monday’s vote to expand the restrictions and advance the legislation came days after the GOP-controlled Senate agreed to allow kids already on puberty blockers and hormone therapy by early June to keep their access to those treatments. Major medical groups approve of such care and say it lessens higher rates of depression and suicide for trans youth.

Item 2:

The Texas Senate on Wednesday approved two bills aimed at restricting drag performances that children attend or see. One of them, Senate Bill 1601, would defund public libraries where drag queens are allowed to read to children. The other, Senate Bill 12, bars kids from drag shows if the performances are overly lewd and lascivious.

SB 1601 was approved in a 19-10 vote. SB 12, which is a priority for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick this session, was approved in a 20-11 vote. Both bills now head to the House.

Item 3:

A bill intended to rein in district attorneys who decline to pursue certain cases passed the Senate on Wednesday. The bill, a priority for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, is part of a larger effort to limit the power of elected prosecutors, especially in Texas’ largest, left-leaning counties.

Some district and county attorneys in Texas have said they will not prosecute people accused of violating the state’s near-total abortion bans. There’s also conflict over whether prosecutors will pursue allegations of election fraud, as well as cases involving first-time drug offenders or low-level theft.

Prosecutors have wide latitude to decide what cases their office will pursue. But conservative lawmakers have filed more than 30 bills intending to limit this “prosecutorial discretion.”

“Unfortunately, certain Texas prosecutors have joined a trend of adopting internal policies refusing to prosecute particular laws,” Sen. Joan Huffman, a Republican from Houston who authored the bill, said Tuesday. “These actions set a dangerous precedent and severely undermine the authority of the Legislature.”

Senate Bill 20, which passed the Senate in a 20-11 vote on Wednesday, is the first such bill to pass either chamber. Huffman and Sen. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, authored the legislation.

SB 20 would prohibit prosecutors from adopting or enforcing a policy “under which the prosecuting attorney refuses to prosecute a class or type of criminal offense.” Such a policy would qualify as “official misconduct”; if a jury finds a prosecutor guilty of misconduct, a district judge can order them removed from office.

Currently, only a county resident can bring an allegation of misconduct against an elected prosecutor. But both chambers are considering separate legislation that would allow residents and prosecutors in neighboring counties, and the attorney general, to file charges of official misconduct.

Other bills would enable the attorney general to take on any cases rejected by a county prosecutor — or sue for tens of thousands of dollars for every day a prosecutor has a policy against pursuing certain cases.

The Texas District and County Attorneys Association has raised concerns about these bills, noting on their website that there is already a system in place for residents of a county to raise issues with their prosecutor — either through bringing misconduct claims or by voting them out at the next election.

State lawmakers trying to override prosecutorial discretion is “another attempt to exert statewide control over a traditionally local function,” Sandra Guerra Thompson, a professor of criminal law at the University of Houston Law Center, told The Texas Tribune. “We’re seeing a lot of that these days.”

Any or all of these bills could fail in the House, or get amended to be less awful. I wouldn’t count on it, but it could happen. Just note that these are among the top priorities of Dan Patrick.

And finally, speaking of Dan Patrick, Item 4:

During a Senate floor debate Tuesday supposedly about “protecting children,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick rebuked Sen. Roland Gutierrez for repeatedly mentioning gun violence. Sen. Gutierrez thought gun violence might be relevant to “protecting children,” especially since his Uvalde district is still recovering from the trauma of the school massacre that took the lives of 19 children and two adults.

The reason for the public rebuke? This debate about “protecting children” wasn’t about guns or violent crime. It was about the dangers of – drag shows. Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, has proposed legislation that would bar minors from attending drag shows.

When Hughes argued that his law, Senate Bill 12,  would help “protect children,” Gutierrez countered: “Man, I’ll tell you, I’ve been all about this session about protecting children, my friend, and we haven’t done a whole lot of protecting children when it comes to guns and ammunition,” said Gutierrez.

The Senate gallery, which is open to the public, could be heard cheering, according to KVUE

Sen. Hughes looked “rattled” during the exchange, according to the Quorum Report.

But Lt. Gov. Patrick was quick to offer protection from the volley of words and came to Hughes’ rescue. Patrick scolded Gutierrez and announced that he would not be recognized to speak on the floor going forward if he could not limit his queries to the topic of protecting children (from drag shows).

“I appreciate your interest in protecting kids,” Sen. Gutierrez responded. “I sure would, could, use your support in protecting kids that are killed by gun violence in this state.”

As the Senate gallery cheered again, Lt. Gov. Patrick banged his gavel and warned that he would order the gallery cleared if there were another outburst.

“Sen. Gutierrez, I’m going to give you one more warning. That’s the last time,” Lt. Gov. Patrick said. “Stick to the topic, to the issues you’re asking questions on, or you will not be recognized in the future.”

Yes, how dare the Senator that represents Uvalde talk about guns in the context of protecting children? What was he thinking?

That’s your dismal legislative update for today. I hope to not have to provide more of these on other days.

Senate re-passes its redistricting map

Mostly political theater, as there’s little reason to believe they actually need to cover their butts at this point.

Sen. Joan Huffman

A year and half after it was first approved, the Texas Senate on Monday voted to rubber-stamp a map setting the chamber’s political districts, which increased the Senate’s Republican majority and undercut the political power of voters of color.

The boundaries of the state’s political maps were redrawn in 2021, but the 23-7 vote was a procedural step to meet legal requirements. The state constitution requires legislative districts be redrawn in the first regular session after the results of the decennial census are published. But the delays of the COVID-19 pandemic pushed the release of the 2020 census results past the end of the last regularly scheduled session in May 2021.

Lawmakers redrew the state’s political maps to incorporate a decade’s worth of explosive population growth later in the year during a specially called legislative session. The districts were then used during the 2022 elections.

State Sen. Joan Huffman, the Houston Republican who led the chamber’s redistricting process in 2021, described the vote on Senate Bill 375 as a “culmination” of the chamber’s redistricting work, including meeting constitutional obligations.

No members of the Senate submitted proposed amendments to the map. Several changes proposed by members of the public were rejected, Huffman said, because they did not align with her stated redistricting objectives, including “partisan considerations,” equalizing population across the districts and preserving communities of interest.

The Senate map is one target of broad federal litigation challenging how the Republican-controlled Legislature used the once-a-decade redistricting process to draw maps solidifying the GOP’s political dominance while weakening the influence of voters of color.

[…]

The federal three-judge panel overseeing the redistricting case previously denied a request by Tarrant County residents to block the reconfiguration of SD-10 from being used in last year’s elections while they pursued their legal challenge.

The state has argued that the reconfiguration was motivated by partisanship, not race, and that the plaintiffs were unable to prove that race was the predominant factor motivating the Legislature’s action. The changes to the district offered Republicans an easier path to pick up the seat in the Republican-controlled chamber.

Huffman, the chamber’s chief map-drawer, said throughout the 2021 redistricting process that the maps were drawn “race-blind” and were presented to legal counsel who cleared them as compliant with federal law meant to protect voters of color from discrimination.

She has repeatedly declined to disclose how they reached that conclusion, though. In a deposition for the SD-10 challenge, Huffman invoked legislative privilege to shield herself from answering questions about her considerations while redrawing the district.

The Senate reapproved its map while the challenge to the Legislature’s redistricting work remains in legal limbo. The three-judge panel in charge of the case has yet to reschedule a trial over the new political maps after delaying a September 2022 trial because of disputes over discovery that left both the state and the various plaintiff groups questioning whether they’d have enough time to prepare to make their cases in a federal court in El Paso.

The Senate map now heads for reapproval in the House, where its redistricting committee is just beginning its work to reapprove the map it adopted in 2021 for the House’s 150 districts.

See here, here, and here for some background. As noted before, I think this is solid evidence for the assertion made by Sens. Roland Gutierrez and Sarah Eckhardt that the legislative (non-Congressional) redistricting done in 2021 was unconstitutional. Not that there’s a damn thing to be done about it now, since the Supreme Court declined to do anything about it then. I expect the state lawsuits will eventually be tossed on the grounds that they’re now moot, and then we’ll play the usual multi-year game of What Excuse Will The Federal Courts Find This Time To Let Republicans Do What They Want. Situation normal, in other words.

Yes, it’s another Senate 2024 post

Sorry, I’m legally obligated to blog about these, I don’t make the rules.

Not Ted Cruz

Texas Democrats acknowledge that a steep climb awaits whoever challenges Cruz in 2024. But though they have limited options, they believe at least one potential candidate could make the race competitive.

“The real challenge is not to make [Cruz] unacceptable, which he is,” one Democratic strategist based in Texas told Inside Elections. “The real challenge is for our candidate to be acceptable.”

Rep. Colin Allred, who represents the suburbs of Dallas, and Julián Castro, the former San Antonio mayor and HUD secretary, are seen as the two strongest potential contenders.

Aside from O’Rourke, Castro is probably the best known Democratic figure in the state. The 48-year-old former mayor and his twin brother, Rep. Joaquin Castro, have been involved in Texas Democratic politics since the early 2000s, when Julián Castro served on the San Antonio city council and Joaquin Castro served in the Texas state House.

As mayor of one of Texas’ largest cities, he was seen as a rising progressive star and delivered a keynote speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention that elevated his national profile. Two years later, President Barack Obama nominated Castro to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and he became the youngest member of the president’s Cabinet.

But his 2020 presidential campaign failed to pick up steam, and Castro, the only Latino candidate in the Democratic primary, dropped out of the race at the beginning of 2020 and endorsed Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Democrats who spoke with Inside Elections were skeptical that Castro would make the jump — and some expressed concerns that the former presidential contender would be too progressive to win statewide.

Allred, however, appears to be seriously considering a campaign, though he’s yet to comment publicly on his intentions.

[…]

Democrats agree that if Allred decided to run, he’d clear the primary field. At the end of 2022, the congressman reported having nearly $2 million in cash on hand.

“I do think that he has the best shot, and quite frankly, I haven’t really heard of anyone else that would be credible that’s thinking about running,” Democratic Rep. Marc Veasey, who represents a neighboring district in the Metroplex, told Inside Elections.

But if neither Allred nor Castro decide to run, the Democratic primary field is wide open.

Democrats point to state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, who represents a sprawling district that stretches from San Antonio into West Texas, as a potential option.

Gutierrez’s profile has risen since the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde reignited the debate over gun laws. Throughout this year’s legislative session, the 52-year-old state senator has introduced several sets of bills to tighten the state’s gun laws and better prepare law enforcement to respond to shootings.

Other names mentioned include outgoing Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, 33-year-old state Rep. James Talarico, and even Scott Kelly, the retired astronaut and brother of Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly. Two years ago, Kelly, a Houston resident originally from New Jersey, responded to a tweet asking him to run against Cruz, saying “Hmm…maybe.”

See here for the very recent previous post on this topic. Scott Kelly is a new name to be added to the Speculation List, though a non-response to a two-year-old tweet seems like an awfully thin reed on which to build such speculation. But if it weren’t for such flights of fancy, where would we be as the political commentariat?

At this point, it’s clear that talking up Colin Allred is the thing to be doing, and I’m fine with that. He would be a great candidate. He would also be giving up a lot to make an underdog run for the Senate. I have no idea what he’ll do. I’m just happy to make note of it when the subject comes up. Link via Daily Kos.

Three stories on Uvalde and gun control

First, a story about locks and why an obsession with locking school doors is not really going to improve safety.

In the aftermath of school shootings like the one in Uvalde, what can get overlooked is basic: Schools need doors that work and don’t require special knowledge or keys to secure; they need locks that can be accessed from inside classrooms; and a system for accessing master keys swiftly when minutes matter.

The day of the Robb Elementary School shooting, a teacher had propped open the west exterior door of the school’s west building—added to the school campus 23 years ago—to get food from a colleague, when she saw the shooter heading toward the building. She slammed the door shut, according to the teacher’s attorney, Don Flanary. The door should have kept the shooter out—or at least delayed his entry. It didn’t. Contrary to school policy, all three of the west building’s exterior doors were unlocked that day.

The west building’s exterior doors weren’t the only problem on May 24. Several of the classroom doors had problems latching, including room 111—the classroom through which the shooter “most likely” entered, per the Texas House of Representatives investigation report. KENS5 further reported that the door’s bolt didn’t fit its frame. In addition, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw said that the strike plate that allows the door to latch was damaged.

Whatever the cause, securing the door required extra effort to ensure the latch engaged. Room 111 was not the only classroom whose door had problems. The fourth-grade teacher in room 109 testified in the Texas House report that she also “slammed [her] door shut because otherwise the lock would not [otherwise] latch.”

According to the Texas House report, Arnulfo Reyes, the teacher in Room 111, had alerted school administrators multiple times about the issue with the door prior to May 24. Yet a work order was never issued nor was there documentation of Reyes’ complaint in Robb Elementary maintenance records.

[…]

Part of the reason doors were propped open or left unlocked was because of a key shortage. The manufacturer had discontinued production of the door locks used at Robb; the school district had acquired a supply of key blanks, but those were gone by May 2022, Uvalde CISD Maintenance & Operations Director Rodney Harrison said in the Texas House report. Because of the key shortage, substitute teachers were told to use magnets and other methods to get around the locks in violation of school district policy.

Reading this story, and because I have a cybersecurity mindset, reminded me of two things. One is that there’s always a tradeoff between security and ease of use. Think about passwords. People use simple passwords and reuse the same password on multiple systems and fail to enable two-factor authentication because it’s easier that way, and because there’s a big price to pay for forgetting a password and getting locked out of an account or application that you really need. Finding shortcuts and conveniences and workarounds is human nature. You can spend a ton of money on fancy security systems – the story talks about how much money school districts have had to spend, usually via bond issuances that can be hard to convince voters to support, to meet new state requirements for physical security in schools. But if these systems don’t take the human factor into account, a lot of that money is wasted.

And two, no single security measure is ever sufficient on its own. This is why effective cybersecurity for an enterprise network is all about multiple layered, redundant, overlapping defense mechanisms. We expect there to be gaps and failures and weaknesses, which is why there are backups in place. You can “harden” schools all you want, but you can’t make them safe until you address the gun problem, and that’s something our Legislature just won’t do as things stand now.

It has become a mournful pattern. Following mass shootings, lawmakers in many states have taken stock of what happened and voted to approve gun control legislation to try to prevent additional bloodshed.

In Colorado, the Legislature passed universal background checks in 2013 after a shooter at an Aurora movie theater killed 12 people. After 58 people were shot dead during a 2017 concert in Las Vegas, the Nevada Legislature passed a red flag law that allows a judge to order that weapons be taken from people who are deemed a threat. And in Florida in 2018, then-Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill that raised the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21 after a teenager with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire at a Parkland high school, killing 17 people.

But not in Texas.

In the past six decades, the state has experienced at least 19 mass shootings that have killed a total of nearly 200 people and wounded more than 230 others. Yet state leaders have repeatedly batted away measures that would limit access to guns, opting instead to ease restrictions on publicly carrying them while making it harder for local governments to regulate them.

As the state Legislature convenes for the first time since the Uvalde school shooting last May, lawmakers have once again filed a slate of gun control bills. If history is an indicator, and top legislative leaders predict it will be, they are unlikely to pass.

An analysis by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune of hundreds of bills filed in the Texas Legislature over nearly the past six decades found that at least two dozen measures would have prevented people from legally obtaining the weapons, including assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, used in seven of the state’s mass shootings.

At least five bills would have required that people seeking to obtain a gun undergo a background check. Such a check would have kept the man involved in a 2019 shooting spree in Midland and Odessa from legally purchasing the weapon because he had been deemed to have a mental illness.

Seven bills would have banned the sale or possession of the semi-automatic rifle that a shooter used to kill dozens of people at an El Paso Walmart in 2019.

And at least two bills would have raised the legal age to own or purchase an assault weapon from 18 to 21 years old, which would have made it illegal for the Uvalde shooter to buy the semi-automatic assault rifles.

A state House committee that investigated the Uvalde massacre found that the shooter had tried to get at least two people to buy a gun for him before he turned 18 but was unsuccessful. Immediately after his birthday, he purchased two AR-15-style rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition, which he used to kill 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School.

“If that law had been 21, I guarantee you he would have continued to be frustrated and not be able to obtain that weapon,” said state Rep. Joe Moody, a Democrat from El Paso who served as vice chair of the House committee.

It’s funny, in a bitterly ironic and painful way, that the first line of argument advanced by the legislative gun-huggers and the paid shills they listen to is that this one specific gun control law would not have stopped that one particular mass shooter, so therefore all gun control laws are useless. Yet there they are in the Lege going back to the same “harden the schools” well, time and time again. It takes a comprehensive approach, but the Republicans just won’t allow it.

Despite that, the work continues.

As a new legislative session kicks into gear, [Rep. Tracy] King is working on a bill that would increase the age limit to buy semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21. The Uvalde gunman had tried to get at least two people to buy him firearms before he turned 18. Days after his 18th birthday, he purchased two AR-15-style rifles before invading the school and targeting students and teachers. In August, Uvalde residents and relatives of the shooting victims protested at the Capitol, calling on lawmakers to raise the age limit to buy the kind of firearms the Robb Elementary gunman used.

“In this particular case, that guy had tried to buy a gun,” said King, who previously wouldn’t support the legislation he plans to champion for his constituents. “It sure might have made a difference.”

Still, King’s legislation is a bold proposal in the state that leads the nation in gun sales and whose lawmakers have steadily loosened firearm restrictions amid eight mass shootings in 13 years. And it’s coming from a Democrat who previously voted to allow people to carry a handgun without training or a license. King hasn’t yet filed his bill, though other lawmakers have filed similar pieces of legislation this year.

Gov. Greg Abbott has dismissed the idea of raising the age limit as unconstitutional. In December, Texas dropped a fight to protect an existing state law that required people who carry handguns without licenses to be 21 or older after a federal district judge said it violates people’s Second Amendment rights. And Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan has said a proposal such as King’s lacks the votes to pass the lower chamber. But Phelan also said that “will not prevent a bill from being discussed and being debated.”

King knows he faces an uphill battle. But he’s also committed to trying, after spending nearly eight months helping folks — some of whom he knew before the tragedy — grapple with a staggering amount of loss.

“We have to go in it with our eyes open,” he said during a recent interview in his Texas Capitol office. “It’ll be a challenge. It’ll be a difficult conversation for a lot of people.”

King isn’t the only lawmaker who represents Uvalde and is pushing to limit access to semi-automatic rifles. State Sen. Roland Gutierre, a San Antonio Democrat whose district includes Uvalde, has already filed a bill in the Senate that would address the same issue.

Gutierrez has publicly criticized the law enforcement response, Texas’ loose gun laws and officials who have withheld information about the investigations into the shooting. Gutierrez has also filed legislation that would create robust mass shooting response training for all public safety entities and improve radio communication between certain agencies.

“I’m for Tracy’s bill, I’m for my bill, I’m for anybody’s bill if a Republican wants to come up and have a bill that raises the age limit on long guns right now to 21,” Gutierrez said. “We’re not taking anybody’s guns away. We’re regulating guns for what I would argue are minors, just like we do alcohol, just like we do cigarettes in Texas.”

I greatly respect what Sen. Gutierrez has been doing, and I’m glad to have Rep. King on board. I’ve also seen this movie before and I know how it ends. You know what my prescription for this problem is. If Gutierrez and King can change a few minds along the way, that will help. We have a long way to go.

Still more Uvalde bills from Sen. Gutierrez

At least one of these might have a chance to pass.

Sen. Roland Gutierrez

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez wants the Texas Department of Public Safety to create robust mass shooting response training for all public safety entities after the chaotic response to the Uvalde school massacre delayed medical treatment of victims.

“Everybody in Texas needs to examine the complete and utter failure that happened on this day,” Gutierrez said at a news conference in Austin, joined by families of victims from last year’s Uvalde shooting and the 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting. “It must not ever happen again.”

The new slate of bills Gutierrez unveiled Tuesday came less than two months after an investigation by The Texas Tribune, ProPublica and The Washington Post found a faltered medical response undermined the chances that some Uvalde victims would survive the shooting.

[…]

On Tuesday, Gutierrez said the victims who had a pulse before later dying “might have lived” had the response been more in line with the average length of a mass shooting, which he said was about 12 to 14 minutes, compared to the 77 minutes children waited in Uvalde before the shooter was killed.

“We do not know how many of the other kids that didn’t have a pulse, at what time did they expire?” he said. “We do not know that.”

Gutierrez is a San Antonio Democrat whose Senate district includes Uvalde. His Senate Bill 738 calls for ensuring all public safety entities in certain counties have the radio infrastructure for communication between all public safety entities, including between different kinds of agencies.

Further, the bill would create a process to train public safety entities in responding to mass shootings. The training would be required to include protection of students at a school; emergency medical response training in minimizing casualties; tactics for denying an intruder entry into a school or classroom; and the chain of command during such an event.

Another legislative proposal outlined Tuesday would create a law enforcement unit tasked with having at least one officer present at each public school and higher education facility in the state. The unit, Texas School Patrol, would be expected to coordinate with local police officials about emergency responses to mass shooting events.

A third proposal, which Gutierrez called “a little bit more aspirational,” would replace a Confederate monument at the Capitol with a memorial to honor victims and survivors of mass gun violence.

“Each parent should be able to send their kids to school knowing that they’re going to be able to pick them up at the end of the day,” Gutierrez said. “We can afford to do this and we should do this and it will have the adequate training to make sure that they can handle this type of situation.”

Senate Bill 737, to create the new police unit, would require 10,000 additional officers in the state within the Texas Highway Patrol; it would cost about $750 million, Gutierrez said.

See here, here, and here for the background on Sen. Gutierrez’s efforts, and here for more on the failed medical response at Robb Elementary. I don’t want to predict success for any bill, especially a Democratic bill in Dan Patrick’s Senate, but SB738 strikes me as the kind of thing that probably won’t generate much ideological opposition. Spending money on enhanced security measures is one of the few acceptable-to-Republicans responses to mass shootings, so it has a chance. SB737 might have a chance as well, but it’s a lot more expensive and that might make people balk, even in a flush-budget biennium. I’m not saying these would be my top choices for bills to pass – I think SB738 has merit and hope it succeeds, while I’m far less enthusiastic about SB737 – but they are the sort of thing that could pass. This is the state government we have.

Is it finally the time for Julian Castro?

This story is mostly about Ted Cruz and whether he might run for President again in 2024; the tone of the story is that he probably won’t. No one cares about that, but because it is a story about 2024 and Ted Cruz will be running for re-election to the Senate in 2024, it contains the following bits of speculation about who might run against him:

Not Ted Cruz

Cruz’s focus on his Senate bid follows a tough 2018 reelection fight against former Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who lost by 2.6 points. Combined, the two candidates raised close to $115 million, with O’Rourke bringing in more than $80 million. And Cruz may face another fight in 2024, with Texas and Florida the only conceivable pick-up opportunities for Democrats in a cycle that will have them mostly on defense — 23 of the party’s seats are up next year.

O’Rourke did not respond to a request for comment on whether he was considering a second Senate run against Cruz. After losing his gubernatorial bid against Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in 2022, he told the audience in his concession speech that “this may be one of the last times I get to talk in front of you all.”

But plenty of others are considering a Cruz challenge. A person close to former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro said that he is weighing a run. Democrats in the state are also watching Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas); state senator Roland Gutierrez, who represents Uvalde, the town devastated by a school shooting; and state Rep. James Talarico, who sparred with Fox News host Pete Hegseth in 2021, according to a Texas Democratic strategist.

A senior adviser to Cruz, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said he plans to make his formal Senate run announcement within the first half of the year. They added that Cruz would make additional staff hires during that period and that he’s already started raising money, including “revamping completely the small-dollar operation.” Cruz currently has $3.4 million cash on hand.

Democrats acknowledge that Texas has not been an easy state for the party. But they argue that Cruz is more vulnerable than his other GOP counterparts, citing the close 2018 race and his castigated 2021 trip to Cancun while Texas underwent a power-grid emergency due to a winter storm.

“We look forward to our Democratic nominee retiring Ted Cruz from the U.S. Senate and finally allowing him some time to finally relax at his preferred Cancun resort,” said Ike Hajinazarian, a spokesperson for the Texas Democratic Party. “That is, of course, should he even choose to run for reelection, which would be strange considering his newly-introduced legislation to limit U.S. senators to two terms.”

Cruz, who would be running for a third term, told reporters this week that he doesn’t support unilateral term limits, but would “happily comply with them if they applied to everyone.”

The term limits thing doesn’t even make my Top 25 list of Ted Cruz atrocities. I’m not going to expend any energy on that at this time. As for Beto, I’m pretty sure we’ve seen the last of him on the statewide stage, at least for the foreseeable future. He ain’t running for anything in 2024, I’m confident of that.

We have discussed Rep. Colin Allred before, and he would be a fine candidate if he chose to run. As far as I know, any words to the effect that he has an interest or is seriously considering the possibility have yet to come from his own mouth, and as such I put this in with the “speculation” files. The thing that strikes me about Allred is that he’s in a similar situation that his colleague Rep. Joaquin Castro was in 2017 and being talked about a run against Cruz in that cycle. Like Castro, Allred is in a (now, post-redistricting) blue district and he’s building up seniority while also being seen as a rising star within the party. It’s not hard to imagine him as a deputy whip or a powerful committee chair in a couple of cycles. Given that, what is the upside to making an at-best longshot run for the Senate? It would be one thing if the Senate seat were clearly winnable, but it’s a stretch and everyone knows it. He could win, and as was the case with Beto a close loss might still be a boost to whatever other prospects he ay have, but you still have to weight that against what he’d be giving up. Seems to me the easy choice is to stay put and wait until Texas is competitive enough to tip the odds in your favor. Rep. Allred may see it differently, but I think he’s not likely to make this leap.

And that brings us to Julian Castro, whose name has certainly been mentioned as a possible statewide candidate before. Indeed, we’re approaching the ten-year anniversary of “potential statewide candidate Julian Castro” territory, as those stories were being written at the start of the 2014 gubernatorial campaign. At this point, I don’t know if he really is thinking that the time is right or if he’s the 2023 version of John Sharp, destined to always be brought up in this kind of story because it would be weirder to not mention him. I don’t know who counts as a “person close to” him, but as with Rep. Allred, I’d like to hear the words come from his own mouth before I start to take it seriously.

I’ll say this: At least in 2017/2018, you could say that Julian Castro was really running for President in 2020, and as such it made no sense for him to campaign for something else in the meantime. Julian Castro is not running for President in 2024, and if what he really wants to do is run for Governor in 2026, maybe put the word out about that. I guess what I’m saying is that while there’s still no reason yet to get on the “Julian Castro might really run for something statewide this time!” train, there’s also nothing obvious out there that would be an obstacle to it. Either he actually does want to run and will eventually tell us so himself, most likely after multiple teases and hints like this could be, or he doesn’t and he won’t. This means I will need to stay vigilant for future references to his possible candidacy. Hey, I knew what I was getting into when I started blogging.

Finally, in regard to Sen. Gutierrez and Rep. Talarico, I mean, I’m sure someone mentioned their names as possibilities. I’ve speculated about potential future candidacies for people myself, it’s a fun and mostly harmless activity. Again, and I’m going to keep harping on this, until you hear the person themselves say it, that’s all that it is. I’m going to be tracking “potential candidate” mentions anyway, so we’ll see where they and maybe others fit in. It’s still super early, there will be plenty more where this came from.

Sen. Gutierrez files more Uvalde bills

Wish I could say any of these had a chance, but the work he’s doing is still vital and necessary regardless.

Sen. Roland Gutierrez

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, who represents Uvalde, said Tuesday that he is leading legislation to make it easier for families of the Robb Elementary School shooting victims to sue the state and police officers over the botched law enforcement response.

The San Antonio Democrat and other Democratic senators are introducing four new pieces of legislation that seek to increase gun safety and law enforcement accountability. The news came during a press conference, where they were flanked by several of the victims’ families.

“We’re not asking for the moon and the stars. We’re asking for commonsense solutions,” Gutierrez said.

Gutierrez filed Senate Bill 575 to end qualified immunity for police officers, a judicial doctrine that shields government officials from liability for constitutional violations. The doctrine has been spotlighted nationally in recent years because it is routinely used to protect law enforcement officers from being sued in cases of excessive force. He said ending qualified immunity will make it easier for the families of the Uvalde shooting victims to seek damages after the flawed law enforcement response to the Uvalde school shooting, in which hundreds of officers descended on the school but did not confront the gunman for over an hour.

This bill is accompanied by Senate Concurrent Resolution 12, which he co-authored with other Democratic senators, that “empowers” families of the Uvalde shooting victims to sue the state and its agencies.

“I support law enforcement 100%, but under no circumstances should they have [allowed] what happened on that day,” Gutierrez said. “They failed these children for 77 minutes for a lack of leadership — under no circumstances should they be allowed to walk away and not compensate people. There’s no amount of money that’s going to bring back their children. But there should be justice, so today’s about justice.”

Gutierrez said he plans to file about 20 bills in total in response to the Uvalde shooting.

See here and here for the background. Like I said, I expect basically nothing from any of these bills. The Republicans have made their position clear, and they see no reason to budge. Their rabid voters wouldn’t let them anyway. The next best thing, which we need to do anyway, is make the case to the public. We know plenty of people support a lot of these ideas. Getting them to vote for politicians who support them, that’s the problem. Sen. Gutierrez almost certainly won’t get any of his bill passed this session, but he is – and should be – working for the next session, or the one after that. It’s good to start now.

Pushing the panic button

This feels like security theater to me, but it’s what passes for progress these days.

All school districts in Montgomery County will soon be using panic alert technology during emergencies, including an active shooter situation, a security measure Texas education officials have proposed to in the wake of the deadly Robb Elementary shooting in Uvalde.

Conroe, Willis, Magnolia, New Caney, Montgomery and Splendora school districts will roll out the Rave Panic Button that will allow users to summon police, medical or fire personnel with the touch of one button on their cell phone.

The Montgomery County Emergency Communication District is partnering with the school districts to fund part of the $170,000 cost for three years.

Andrea Shepard, associate director at the emergency district, said the technology allows a faculty or staff member to push a button for help in an emergency and immediately be connected with 911 dispatchers. The app alerts other faculty and staff on the campus of the threat as well.

“The safety and wellbeing of our students and staff is and will always be our No. 1 priority,” Shepard said. “Our school community should be focused on learning, not worrying about their safety.

[…]

The partnership comes after the Texas Education Agency released more details in November regarding panic button technology to beef up school safety after the shooting deaths of 19 children and two adults in May at Robb Elementary.

Currently, districts in 46 states are using the panic button technology, including several in Texas.

I can understand why schools and school districts find this kind of solution appealing. It feels like you’re doing something, which in an environment where not much is in your control has to provide some comfort. It’s not clear to me what the practical advantage of using this app is over just calling 911, especially if you still have to describe the reason for pushing the button. I’m sure some academic is currently collecting data to try to find the effect of one of these apps – there are several options, apparently, with Montgomery schools choosing a product called Rave – so we’ll eventually see a study or two to tell us. The bigger issue – well, one of them, since the root cause problem is only mentioned at the end of this story – is what happens once the button is pushed.

Uvalde had a similar panic system in place when the gunfire erupted in May. State Sen. Roland Gutierrez (D-San Antonio) told KHOU that panic buttons work to a degree but won’t solve the gun violence in schools.

“It did work to a certain degree. It warned people and law enforcement there was an intruder,” said Gutierrez, whose districts represents the Uvalde area.

He said the technologies are just a band-aid to the real problem.

“There are remedies on both sides of the aisle but they are not really addressing the real core of the problem, which is we are putting assault rifles in the hands of 18-year-olds,” said Gutierrez.

Calling law enforcement in a more efficient manner is only an advantage if law enforcement’s response is up to the challenge. The example from Uvalde is not promising. Maybe Montgomery County is up to the task. I’m sure Uvalde would have said they were up to it as well, and we haven’t even mentioned DPS and their manifest failures. I mean, I dunno, maybe putting in some effort on the prevention part of the equation might be worthwhile? Just a thought.

It’s re-redistricting time

More amusing than alarming, with a bit of annoying as well.

The Texas Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday to again take up the decennial process of redrawing the boundaries of the state’s political districts a year and a half after the Legislature completed the process and yielded new districts. Those newly drawn districts increased the Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House and reduced the voting strength of voters of color.

The redistricting process this year is mostly procedural and is not expected to produce very different results.

Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, said she was taking the step “out of an abundance of caution” to ensure that Legislature had met its constitutional requirement to apportion districts in the first regular session after the federal census, which is done every 10 years. Because of the pandemic, census numbers were not released until after the end of the last regularly scheduled legislative session on May 31, 2021. Redistricted maps were passed in a subsequent special session that year.

Two Democratic lawmakers, Sens. Roland Gutierrez of Antonio and Sarah Eckhardt of Austin sued, saying that violated the Texas Constitution because the census numbers weren’t received until Aug. 12, 2021. That would make the current legislative session, which kicked off on Tuesday, the first regular session since the release of those numbers.

Eckhardt said the Senate’s decision to take up the issue again proves she and Gutierrez were right on the law, but she said she didn’t expect much change in the maps drawn by the state in 2021.

“I think this will be a check-the-box exercise,” she said. “I would have liked to have seen in the first go-around a substantive discussion and taking the input of constituencies into account.”

[…]

Huffman, who led the redistricting committee in the 2021 legislative session and will again lead its efforts this year, said the procedure would follow similar rules to those applied last session and would create an opportunity for “regional hearings” to be held in the Capitol that will be streamed on the internet for the public across the state. The public will also have an avenue to testify in those hearings virtually. Those hearings will be held between Jan. 25 and 28.

See here, here, and here for some background. While this resolution is only for the Senate, the same exercise will need to occur for the House and the SBOE as well; Congressional redistricting is exempt because the constitutional provision only applied to state offices. I think Sen. Eckhardt is correct in her assessment, and it’s a shame that the State Supreme Court did not see it the same way, but here we are. I presume the federal litigation over Texas’ maps and processes will be unaffected by this – the legal issue in question was one of state law. As noted I don’t expect much to change, but anytime there is redistricting there is the potential for shenanigans, so stay alert. Reform Austin.

Will we finally close the “dead suspect” loophole?

The short answer is no we won’t, but it will be worth the effort anyway.

Rep. Joe Moody

In November, state Representative Joe Moody, an El Paso Democrat who served on a committee that investigated the Uvalde killings, filed House Bill 30, a multifaceted measure that would close what’s called the “dead suspect loophole.” Under current law, Texas cops and prosecutors may withhold from the public many records stemming from investigations that did not result in a conviction. This statute arguably protects the reputations of innocent Texans, but it also casts a veil of secrecy over cases where there’s no conviction because the suspect is deceased—including when cops kill someone during an arrest, or a person dies in jail, or a school shooter’s rampage ends, as happened at Robb Elementary, with his own demise. Moody’s bill would specifically open up many cases where the lack of a conviction resulted from a suspect’s death.

Since May, state police have withheld records such as video and audio recordings from the Uvalde scene on the premise that the local district attorney is still investigating—a standard reason that agencies hold back much detailed information. Under the dead suspect loophole, however, those records can plausibly be kept secret forever. HB 30 would head this off.

“I certainly respect the investigatory process, but at some point you turn the corner and the public deserves to scrutinize the records, and that is at the heart of the Public Information Act,” Moody told the Observer. “The government doesn’t get to decide what is good for us to know and what is bad for us to know.”

In June, GOP Speaker of the House Dade Phelan tweeted support for closing the dead suspect loophole in Uvalde’s wake, and a spokesperson confirmed in early December that the speaker continues to support such a policy though he is “not yet familiar with the specifics of legislation that has been filed.”

In its present form, HB 30 would also expand public access to information about police misconduct in general and to videos of jail deaths or shootings by police, along with creating a public database of reports related to such shootings, among other provisions.

Next year’s legislative session, to begin in January, will mark the fourth time that Moody has tried to close the dead suspect loophole. In past sessions, discussion of his bills centered on prominent cases in which Texans were shot on their porches, tased in the back of squad cars, or left to perish in jails. Moody nearly succeeded in closing the loophole in 2019—with help from a contingent of small-government Republicans open to criminal justice reform—but he was derailed by a last-minute, scorched-earth campaign from the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT), the state’s largest police union, in a fight that left the El Paso lawmaker and the lobbying powerhouse as bitter adversaries.

Transparency advocates hope that Uvalde will make the difference this time around, but they won’t be getting any help from CLEAT. “Just like it has been in the past, this is a George Soros-funded fishing expedition that seeks to tear down our profession by false innuendo,” said CLEAT spokesperson Jennifer Szimanski, homing in on parts of the bill dealing with police personnel files. “We’ll definitely be fighting this piece of legislation.”

Szimanski—who also said of the bill: “This is ‘defund the police’”—added that there was likely no path for her group and Moody to discuss any compromise because “the author of this bill has not contacted us since 2019.”

Moody countered that his bill is “properly tailored” to only target information in police personnel files necessary to shed light on misconduct and specific incidents including ones involving dead suspects. “This is a serious policy. It’s not political grandstanding, but the people of that organization are completely disingenuous,” he said of CLEAT, adding that he has not received backing from George Soros, the Hungarian-American billionaire—often used as a bogeyman by the political right—who’s funded criminal justice reform efforts in recent years.

In addition to overcoming CLEAT, Moody would also need acquiescence from archconservative Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who controls the state Senate, and freshly reelected Governor Greg Abbott, who wields the veto pen and may harbor presidential ambitions. Neither responded to requests for comment for this article.

See here and here for some background. As I’ve said before on things like marijuana reform and expanded gambling, nothing will happen unless Dan Patrick changes his mind. We had our chance to do something about that, but we failed. Rep. Moody may be able to get a bill through the House again, but it will never make it through the Senate. It’s still worth the effort because of the stakes involved, but this is a long-term project. There’s no other way.

The rest of the story is about the history of this loophole, which has only existed since the late 90s – things were actually much better before then. Worth your time to read, I had no idea about it. For what it’s worth, Rep. Moody will surely have at least one cranky and pissed off ally in the Senate, and maybe that will have some effect.

Texas state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, who represents Uvalde, lambasted the emergency response to the Robb Elementary School shooting as “the worst response to a mass shooting in our nation’s history” during a congressional hearing Thursday.

“It was system failure, it was cowardice,” Gutierrez said. He joined family members and supporters of the victims in calling for stronger federal action to prevent gun violence.

Gutierrez, a Democrat, made the remarks during a hearing of the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security that was focused on bipartisan legislative solutions to gun violence. But bipartisanship was hardly present as Democrats continued to point out what they called common-sense gun policy and Republicans accused them of trying to take away constitutional gun rights.

[…]

Congress passed a bipartisan law spearheaded by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, in the aftermath of the Uvalde shooting — the first major gun safety law in decades. The law increased funding for mental health resources, barred convicted violent domestic partners from buying guns, created grants for states implementing red flag laws and set money for state crisis intervention programs.

But Gutierrez criticized the bipartisan gun law as lacking basic provisions that would have stopped the massacre. He was angered that the Senate stripped a provision raising the minimum age to buy assault weapons to 21.

“The fact is in Texas you got to be 21 to buy a handgun, 21 to buy a beer, 21 to buy a pack of cigarettes, but you can be 18 and buy an AR-15, and that’s what happened here because this governor allowed it,” Gutierrez told reporters during a recess in the hearing. “It’s time for change, not just in Texas but throughout this country.”

As we know, Sen. Gutierrez plans to be a pain in the Senate’s ass about Uvalde and gun control. I’m sure he’d be persuaded to add this item to his list.

Sen. Gutierrez begins his mission to be a pest about Uvalde

One of the things I’ll be watching this session.

Sen. Roland Gutierrez

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez of San Antonio has pre-filed three bills ahead of Texas’ next legislative session that would reform state gun laws and set up a state fund to compensate victims of the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde.

The two gun-related bills would establish high risk protective orders to keep firearms away from potentially dangerous people and raise the age limit to buy any firearm from 18 to 21.

The other proposal would set up a $300 million fund for Uvalde victims and their families and waive legal immunity for state and local law enforcement who responded to the Robb Elementary shooting on May 24.

“We are doing what should have been done after Sutherland Springs, Santa Fe, El Paso, and Midland-Odessa,” the Democrat said in an emailed statement. “Making sure that young killers cannot get their hands on the weaponry that is used in most of these shootings.”

[…]

The next session of the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature session starts in January. So far, Texas GOP leaders have shown no willingness to impose new limits on gun ownership despite multiple high-profile mass killings across the state.

“It’s time for the killing in Texas to stop,” Gutierrez said. “We cannot continue to live in fear of going to school, going to church, shopping for groceries, and just living our lives.”

See here for the background. To be clear, many, many, many bills are filed every session. Few ever see the light of day, and fewer still even get a committee vote. Without Republican backing, these bills aren’t going anywhere. That’s where Sen. Gutierrez’s pledge to force debate by offering gun control measures as amendments on all sorts of other priority legislation comes into play, and is what I’ll be watching for. In the best case scenario, he manages to succeed and get one of these bills passed. More likely, he’s a thorn in Dan Patrick’s side. I’ll take either outcome.

Sen. Gutierrez vows to be a pest about Uvalde and gun control in the next session

I’m rooting for him.

Sen. Roland Gutierrez

As he watched a couple load ice chests into their car at a gas station, something didn’t sit right with Roland Gutierrez. The pair were likely on their way to the lake to enjoy the late May sunshine in San Antonio—a normal way to spend the day, he knew. But Gutierrez, the state senator for District 19, couldn’t help thinking how surreal it is that life continues after a tragedy. He was on his way to Uvalde just days after an 18-year-old had opened fire on a classroom at Robb Elementary School, killing 19 students and two teachers.

“I was thinking how sad it is that … we move on with our lives,” Gutierrez said when we met at his San Antonio law office in September. “It’s not an unnatural thing. I get it. When these things happen, we always say, ‘Oh, it’s just too bad. I feel so sorry for those people.’”

Gutierrez represents a massive district that stretches from his hometown of San Antonio west to Big Bend National Park, encompassing a broad swath of southwest Texas, including Uvalde. The Democrat is relatively new to the Texas Senate, taking office in January 2021. His campaign had promised certain priorities: to push for legalized marijuana, to bolster mental health resources for rural Texans, and to improve public schools. Although he hasn’t dropped these issues, nearly all of his public appearances since May have been about Uvalde.

The shooting “changed me for sure,” Gutierrez said. “I won’t be a singular-issue public servant, but it has become a very, very big issue in my life and in the lives of these new friends that I’ve made. … For these parents … there’s no issue out there that matters if you don’t have your kid.”

Gutierrez, a father of two girls aged 15 and 13, has emerged as one of the most vocal lawmakers in the shooting’s aftermath. He called for accountability from the agencies that responded to the killings, appealed to Governor Greg Abbott to call a special session on gun laws, and sued the Texas Department of Public Safety and its powerful chief Steve McCraw to try and force the release of more records about the massacre. The state police agency’s response to the Uvalde shooting only deepened his concern. He’s been skeptical of DPS ever since the launch of the “bullshit propaganda machine for Greg Abbott” that is Operation Lone Star, the multi-billion-dollar border security initiative in which state troopers play a starring role.

[…]

If re-elected, Gutierrez said, he’ll go into the 2023 legislative session with a no-excuses plan: force the issue on gun reform. He plans to spearhead legislation on age increases for gun purchases, expanded background checks, and red flag laws. If that doesn’t work, he said he’ll force debate by offering gun control measures as amendments on all sorts of other priority legislation.

“If they don’t want to talk about guns, and they don’t want to talk about gun violence in this state, well, I’m going to be talking about it,” Gutierrez said. “We’ll have Uvalde families in there. … As far as I can see, those families aren’t going to stop, nor should they.”

I’m sure there are plenty of procedural ways in which he can make a pain of himself – Dems have had some success in this department in recent years, though generally speaking at some point the weight of the majority wins, if not in the same session. I would hope that he’ll have plenty of company – it’s clear that one of the Republican goals for this session is to limit Democrats’ influence, so it’s not like there’s much to lose. Not everyone needs to be actively involved with this, but plenty of Dems will have little else of substance to do, most likely. May as well make some political hay – if you want the public that agrees with you on the issues to support you in the next election, you have to make sure they know who is and is not on their side.

Sen. Gutierrez is already at work on this.

Texas Sen. Roland Gutierrez released call logs Monday that he said show Gov. Greg Abbott waited hours after the shooting at Uvalde’s Robb Elementary School to have phone conversations about the tragedy with the state’s top cop.

Gutierrez, whose district includes Uvalde, said the late timing of the three calls Abbott made on May 24, the date of the shooting, to the head of the Texas Department of Public Safety, shows the Republican governor’s lack of concern.

So do their brevity, the Democratic senator added. Records show the three calls totaled 31 minutes.

“That’s not what leaders do, but that’s what this person did,” said Gutierrez, who shared the call logs during a Monday press conference.

[…]

During his Monday press event, Gutierrez said he received the call logs 60 days ago but declined to share them until now because he wanted to give the state’s investigation into the shooting “the benefit of the doubt.”

However, Gutierrez said he’s dismayed by the lack of transparency from both DPS and Abbott’s office around the shooting. He also accused the governor of bankrolling recent ads against him.

“If he wants to play politics with me and with South Texas, then we’re going to tell the truth,” Gutierrez said.

“This man has done absolutely nothing, which is why we’re sharing this today,” the senator added.

I might have acted sooner than that, but at least we’re all clear about who has good faith. This will definitely be worth watching come January.

We have different definitions of “failure”

And by “we”, I mean DPS head Steve McCraw and everybody else.

Weeks after Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw said he would resign if his troopers had “any culpability” in the botched police response to the Uvalde school shooting, he told families calling for his resignation Thursday that the agency has not failed as an institution.

“If DPS as an institution — as an institution — failed the families, failed the school or failed the community of Uvalde, then absolutely I need to go,” McCraw said during a heated Public Safety Commission meeting. “But I can tell you this right now: DPS as an institution, right now, did not fail the community — plain and simple.”

McCraw made the remark during a frazzled nearly 15 minutes of comments after several families of the 19 children who were killed spoke during the meeting’s public hearing portion. Two teachers were also killed during the May 24 shooting at Robb Elementary.

At least three sets of relatives — as well as state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio — addressed McCraw, sharing the pain they endure every day and castigating government officials who have failed to release accurate and complete information about the shooting since it occurred.

“Typically when situations like this come up, you expect people to tell you the truth, to be transparent, to own up to their mistakes — nothing much to it,” said an uncle of Jackie Cazares, one of the children killed. “But every single time, it seemed like a lie after lie, misinformation, roadblock after roadblock. You can’t begin the healing process.”

Last week, DPS fired the first trooper in connection to the incident, Sgt. Juan Maldonado, who was one of the first and most senior troopers to get to the school. The agency revealed in September at least five troopers were under investigation for their conduct that day.

[…]

As he spoke, relatives of the victims who were present in the room appeared infuriated. Looking at the leader of the state’s top law enforcement agency, they broke their stare to shake their heads.

Afterward, McCraw told the commission he wanted any families present to have an opportunity to respond.

Brett Cross, whose 10-year-old nephew Uziyah Garcia was among the children killed, walked to a podium.

“Are you a man of your word?” Cross asked.

“Absolutely,” McCraw said.

“Then resign,” Cross responded.

Honestly, I can’t add anything to that. I approve of this message. Texas Public Radio has more.

Abbott weasels on raising the minimum age to buy an assault weapon

Typical.

Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that it would be unconstitutional to increase the minimum age to buy assault-style rifles from 18 to 21 years old — a key proposal Uvalde parents have called for after an 18-year-old gunned down their children’s school in May.

“It is clear that the gun control law that they are seeking in Uvalde — as much as they may want it — has already been ruled as unconstitutional,” Abbott said at a reelection campaign event in Allen.

The gunman in Uvalde bought two AR-15-style rifles days after he turned 18, the legal purchasing age in Texas, and used those weapons to kill 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary.

In the aftermath of the shooting, Texas Senate Democrats have asked for a special legislative session to increase the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic rifle. Families of Uvalde victims and survivors also have pushed for a three-year increase to the legal purchasing age.

[…]

In the days after the shooting in Uvalde, Abbott was asked if he would consider banning assault-style weapons for 18-year-olds. The governor at the time appeared hesitant.

“Ever since Texas has been a state, an 18-year-old has had the ability to buy a long gun, a rifle. Since that time, it seems like it’s only been in the past decade or two that we’ve had school shootings. For a century and a half, 18-year-olds could buy rifles and we didn’t have school shootings. But we do,” Abbott said. “Maybe we’re focusing our attention on the wrong thing.”

Abbott that day was immediately interrupted by state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, who said, “Your own colleagues are telling me, calling me and telling me an 18-year-old shouldn’t have a gun. This is enough. Call us back, man.”

“Simply doing nothing is about as evil as it comes,” Gutierrez later said in June.

See here for the ruling Abbott refers to. I’ll get to the legal stuff in a minute, but first as you might imagine, not everyone cared for this response.

A video of Abbott making the claim circulated on social media, drawing reactions from Texas leaders and Uvalde parents. Brett Cross, father 8-year-old victim Uziyah Garcia’s father, tweeted a video in response to Abbott, noting the “parents matter” signs.

“What parents are you referring to actually? Because it’s not us in Uvalde,” Cross said. Cross also claimed that during a conversation he had in person with Abbott, the governor shut down any talks about changing gun laws because it wouldn’t have changed anything. Abbott allegedly pointed to the 17-year-old gunman from the Santa Fe High School shooting in 2018, Cross said.

“Except it would have,” Cross said. “You see that piece of s–t that murdered our children legally bought that damn gun. You could do something about it. You’re just too chicken s–t to do it. So don’t sit there and act like you’re for the people, that you’re for the parents, that you’re for the children, because you don’t give a damn.”

Cross continued: “But I implore you, make a liar out of me. Call a special session. Or don’t and prove me right. The choice is yours buddy.”

Abbott’s office did not immediately on Wednesday return a request for comment on his conversation with Cross.

The video also drew reactions from other Texas leaders. Austin Mayor Steve Adler tweeted in response: “Seven states have raised the minimum age to 21. It is possible.”

Abbott’s Democratic gubernatorial opponent Beto O’Rourke denied the governor’s claim, writing on Twitter: “Yes, it is. And thanks to the leadership of the families in Uvalde, we are going to do it.”

David Hogg, gun control activist and survivor of the Stoneman Douglass High School shooting tweeted: “Bulls–t we did it in Florida.”

The most obvious thing to point out here is that this ruling can be, and should be appealed. Indeed, the judge in question put his ruling on hold for 30 days pending appeal. That stay can be extended by the appeals court or SCOTUS, and at this point we don’t know what a final ruling will be. That ruling was about carrying handguns, and the demand here is about buying assault weapons, so even if the ruling in this case is eventually upheld, it doesn’t mean that a law raising the age to 21 for assault weapons would be illegal under it. Actual legal experts agree with me on these points!

At least seven states — California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Vermont and Washington — have passed legislation raising the legal purchase age for sales of long guns, and several are still cases regarding those laws are winding their way through the courts.

“It’s an unsettled question whether states can restrict guns to people under 21,” said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who studies gun policy. “There are court cases going both ways … This is one of many issues the Supreme Court is going to have to take up in the coming years.”

[…]

David Pucino, deputy chief counsel for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said there is a well-grounded case to be made that age restrictions are lawful and in keeping with historical laws.

“There is really strong law and strong history to support the principle that you can have these restrictions,” Pucino said. “Historically, the age of 21 was the age of majority (legal adulthood); it’s only a far more recent development that it’s been lowered to the age of 18.”

Pucino added that the cases to which Abbott refers had to do with carrying of handguns, not purchasing of assault weapons.

“An important distinction is that handguns are recognized by the Supreme Court as being the quintessential weapon for self-defense, and that is absolutely not the case with assault weapons,” Pucino said. “These rifles in particular have offensive capabilities, and that’s their distinguishing feature is the fact that they can be used to inflict an incredible and horrifying amount of damage in a very short period of time.”

Greg Abbott is a lawyer and he knows these things perfectly well. He just doesn’t want to deal with them, and so he dodges the question. Oh, and did I mention that the state of Texas is the defendant in that handgun lawsuit? The state of Texas is the party that would be making the appeal of that ruling. If it chooses to, of course, which is also a thing Greg Abbott has a say in. Don’t believe his “we can’t do anything” baloney.

Another lawsuit over Uvalde public information

This all really is ridiculous.

The Texas Tribune, along with a group of other news organizations, filed a lawsuit Monday against the city of Uvalde, the Uvalde County Sheriff’s Office and the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District asking a judge to order the release of records related to the May 24 shooting at Robb Elementary School.

The lawsuit states that the local entities have unlawfully withheld information detailing the actions of their dozens of law enforcement officers who responded to the massacre, which the news organizations requested under the Texas Public Information Act. These records include 911 calls, radio traffic, officer body camera footage, police reports, training materials and school surveillance footage.

“For more than three months, the City of Uvalde, Uvalde CISD and Uvalde Sheriff’s Office have resisted the community’s calls for transparency and accountability,” said Laura Lee Prather, a First Amendment lawyer at Haynes Boone who represents the plaintiffs. “Their obfuscation has only prolonged the pain and grief of this tragedy. Today we are asking the Uvalde District Court to heed the call of the community and recognize that the public is entitled to these records under Texas law. We ask that the court grant our petition so that the people of Uvalde can understand the truth about what happened that fateful day.”

[…]

The Tribune and other news organizations also previously filed suit against the Department of Public Safety over its refusal to release records related to the shooting. The agency’s director publicly pinned much of the blame for the flawed police response on the Uvalde school district police chief, though DPS has repeatedly declined to detail the actions of most of its 91 officers who were on the scene.

The city, county and school district have sought permission from the state’s attorney general to withhold information requested by the news organizations. Under the state’s public records law, documents can be exempted from public disclosure in certain circumstances. The lawsuit states that even after the attorney general informed the city of Uvalde that it could not withhold some documents sought by journalists, the city has yet to release them.

Other news outlets that joined Monday’s lawsuit include ProPublica, The New York Times Co., The Washington Post, Gannett, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News and Dow Jones & Co.

See here for some background on the previous lawsuit against DPS. That one was filed in Travis County, this one in Uvalde County. DPS had also been sued by State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, but it was dismissed for not having been filed correctly. I’m about as unsympathetic to the claims of whatever secrecy these entities have made, and even more so for their lack of action where they don’t even have that excuse. The public deserves to know, and these entities are just covering their asses. It’s long past time for us all to find out more about what happened.

A long look at the lack of accountability in Uvalde

CNN has a very long piece about how there are many investigations going on about the Uvalde massacre but seemingly little to hold anyone accountable for it. Uvalde residents, especially the parents of Robb Elementary children, are increasingly frustrated with the lack of information and the lack of action.

At Uvalde school district and city council meetings this week, community members again pressed their elected officials on why officers at the school that day haven’t been relegated to desk duty or fired. The school district superintendent also was asked why he had not sought an independent investigation into the tragedy, and the mayor was pressed on how and why the city chose an Austin, Texas, investigator to lead its internal review.

“We have yet, almost three months later, to hear any answers or to see any accountability from anybody at any level — from law enforcement officers, to campus staff, to central office and beyond,” Uvalde resident Diana Olvedo-Karau told the school board. “And we just don’t understand why. I mean, how can we lose 19 children and two teachers tragically, just horribly, and not have anybody yet be accountable.”

“It’s approaching three months, and we are still being placated with tidbits or being outright stonewalled or being given excuses” about the city police department’s response, said resident Michele Prouty, who passed out complaint forms against Uvalde police at Tuesday’s city council meeting. “What we have instead — what we are traumatized again and again by — is an inept, unstructured national embarrassment of a circus tent full of smug clowns. These clowns continue to cruise our streets sporting their tarnished badges.”

A looming US Department of Justice after-action report has perhaps the strongest chance of giving a clear understanding of how the day’s horrific events unfolded, experts who spoke to CNN said. Such reports tend to home in on opportunities for improvement, while discipline typically must be backed by precise allegations that would hold up if challenged by an officer or subject to court hearings or arbitration processes.

But it’s not clear precisely what parameters those who are overseeing reviews of the city and school district police departments are using to identify systemic failures or root out findings that could lead to discipline for officers.

The Texas Department of Public Safety has said its wide-ranging internal review could result in referrals to an inspector general. The agency also is conducting the criminal investigation into the Uvalde massacre itself — probing details such as how the shooter got his guns and his online communications before the attack — separate from the internal review of its officers’ conduct at Robb Elementary. Part of that work, it has said, is “examining the actions of every member of (a) law enforcement agency that day.” But it’s not clear whether officers are cooperating with the inquiry.

The district attorney reviewing the criminal investigation, Christina Mitchell Busbee, said she would “seek an indictment on a law enforcement officer for a criminal offense, when appropriate, under the laws of Texas.” But it’s not clear under what law any officer might be charged or whether evidence so far supports charges.

Meantime, how Texas DPS has cast its own role in the tragedy already has come under scrutiny. Its officers were at Robb Elementary earlier than previously known — and longer than Texas DPS has publicly acknowledged — materials reviewed by CNN show, with at least one DPS trooper seen running toward the school, taking cover behind a vehicle and then running toward an entrance within 2-1/2 minutes of the shooter entering. The agency’s director instead publicly has focused on when the first DPS agent entered the hallway where classrooms were under attack.

Further, a Texas DPS spokesperson who made three phone calls to a DPS sergeant inside the school during the 70-plus minutes officers waited to confront the gunman later gave journalists a narrative that quickly unraveled. Since then, news organizations, including CNN, have sued the Texas DPS for access to public records related to the massacre.

Amid the inconsistencies, the head of the state’s largest police union, along with a senior state lawmaker, have questioned Texas DPS’s ability to investigate itself. “I don’t know that we can trust them to do an internal investigation,” Charley Wilkison, executive director of the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, told CNN.

“It would be best if the investigation were headed up by an outside independent source that the public can have total confidence in,” said Wilkison, whose union represents law enforcement officers across the state, including some in Uvalde. 

[…]

It’s not clear whether any internal city investigation was underway between the May 24 massacre and the announcement of the internal investigation, though best practices for investigations dictate they usually begin as close to the incident as possible.

Then at a July 26 city council meeting, city officials said they’d hired the firm of Jesse Prado, a former Austin police homicide detective, to lead their review. Council members said their investigator should finish his work within two months, then Prado will make recommendations — possibly including disciplinary actions — to the council.

“If there’s any officer that’s in violation of any policy or procedure that they needed to act on and did not and might have caused these children to die, these teachers to die, I can assure you, heads are going to roll,” Uvalde City Councilmember Hector Luevano said during the session. Prado declined to comment for this story.

City officials, meantime, have refused for nearly two weeks to answer questions about their review of officers’ actions that day. Tarski Law, listed on the city council’s website as city attorney, also declined to comment and referred questions to Gina Eisenberg, president of a public relations firm that specializes in “crisis communications” and was hired by the city to field media requests. Eisenberg said the city would not comment. McLaughlin, the mayor, said Tuesday he couldn’t characterize the city’s relationship with Eisenberg, who hired her or who is paying her bill, saying, “I don’t know anything about her. I have nothing to do with it.”

Eisenberg also declined to answer questions about the city police department review process. McLaughlin was certain such a process existed but wasn’t aware of related procedures, he told CNN on Tuesday. The internal investigation led by Prado was launched August 1, Eisenberg said. The city attorney chose Prado for the job without a bidding process and based on word-of-mouth recommendations, the mayor told CNN; Tarski Law referred CNN to Eisenberg, who wouldn’t provide a copy of its contract with Prado’s firm, explain what the department’s internal affairs process was before the shooting or say whether that process was used at any time before Prado was hired. Eisenberg said the city would not release further information or comment.

The full scope of Prado’s investigation also isn’t clear — whether he’s conducting an after-action review meant to identify failures for future understanding or investigating specific allegations of broken rules in response to internal complaints, or some hybrid. Prado will have “free range to take the investigation wherever the investigation takes him,” McLaughlin told CNN on Tuesday. While it’s unlikely Prado’s source materials will be released, the mayor said, he vowed to make Prado’s report public after first sharing it with victims’ families — “if I have any say in it.”

“When we see that report, whatever it tells us we need to do and changes we need to make — if it tells us we need to let people go or whatever it tells us — then that’s what we will do,” McLaughlin told CNN.

[…]

While it’s unclear when any of the reviews of law enforcement’s response to the Uvalde massacre will wrap up, the Texas DPS probe — like the others — could have implications for its own and other officers, raising the stakes for how impartially and transparently it’s handled. As with the other probes, too, how it’s conducted and what it concludes will impact what closure families of the slain in this small, tortured city can receive.

Texas DPS “was fast to wash its hands, to point fingers and to make sure that the general public, particularly the elected officials, knew that they were spotless, blameless and that this was a local problem,” said Wilkison, the police union chief.  ”No one created this environment, (in) which everyone’s to blame except DPS. No one did that except them. If we’re to never, ever let this happen in Texas, we have to know what happened, exactly what happened.”

Even with that long excerpt, there’s a ton more at the link, so go read the whole thing. I can’t say I’m a big fan of CLEAT, but Charley Wilkison is right that the report DPS is working on is deeply suspect. I expect that the Justice Department probe will be the most useful, but all they can do is make recommendations. They have no power to change anything. That’s up to DPS and the locals themselves, and it’s clear none of them are particularly motivated to examine themselves.

As I see it, there are two paths to actually making things happen. One is through lawsuits, filed by the parents of the murdered children. File against DPS, against the city of Uvalde, the Uvalde police and the Uvalde school police, and so forth. This will be painful for them, it will take years to get to a conclusion, and it will be a massive fight to get the kind of information they’ve been demanding released, but the discovery process once it kicks in will be a very effective provider of sunlight. The downside is as noted – it will take years and be traumatic over and over again for the families – but in the end I would expect to finally get a real view of what happened, and maybe some financial penalties for the malfunctioning government entities.

The other is through elections. The people of Uvalde should give strong consideration to voting out their entire city and school district governments. Maybe some of those same parents might want to run for one or more of those offices. You want transparency, put some people in power who are truly committed to it. Along those same lines, voting in a new Governor would be the most direct route to getting transparency from DPS. I feel quite confident that Governor Beto O’Rourke will be delighted to appoint a new head of DPS with a mandate to clean house and make public all of the things that department did wrong in this debacle. Nothing like a little regime change to make things happen.

DPS can keep Uvalde info secret for now

Hopefully not for much longer.

Sen. Roland Gutierrez

A state district judge ruled Wednesday that the Department of Public Safety does not have to turn over records related to the Uvalde school shooting sought by state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, who had sued the state police in hopes of securing them.

The order by Travis County 419th Civil District Court Judge Catherine A. Mauzy was narrow, however, and sidestepped the question of whether the state police can withhold records concerning their response to the May 24 massacre at Robb Elementary School. Mauzy concluded that Gutierrez had not properly filed his request under the Texas Public Information Act, the state’s public records law, and therefore DPS was not obligated to fulfill it.

Still, the outcome grants a reprieve for the state police, who have fought to keep secret the details of how 91 officers responded to the shooting. Gutierrez, whose district includes Uvalde, wrote a letter to DPS Director Steve McCraw on May 30, requesting the agency’s training manuals as well as any documents that detail how the state police responded to the shooting that day. In a hearing last week, DPS officials said that request should have gone to the agency’s media relations office.

Gutierrez said Wednesday he disagreed with the ruling and suggested the state police were simply looking for an excuse not to comply with his request. The lawmaker has been among the most critical state officials of how DPS has handled the shooting.

“It is most absurd that Department of Public Safety continues to fight even the most benign distribution of documents, like a training manual,” Gutierrez said. “And they refuse to do it because they’re culpable of their negligence and malfeasance on that day.”

See here for the background. Sen. Gutierrez has since released a statement that says he will appeal, and he will also re-file his request per the court’s orders. If so, then one way or another he should be able to get that information eventually. I’m sure we’ll have to go through more litigation before DPS complies. But I do expect that at some point they will have to.

Uvalde updates

Too much news, so time for a news dump.

Uvalde shooting victims aren’t getting compensated from state fund as intended, officials say.

Sen. Roland Gutierrez

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez and Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin said Monday that families of the Uvalde shooting victims are experiencing delays in getting compensation benefits from the state and that the compensation has been insufficient.

Gutierrez, whose district includes Uvalde, and McLaughlin are calling on Gov. Greg Abbott to remove Uvalde County District Attorney Christina Mitchell Busbee from overseeing victims’ services and to bring in the Texas Division of Emergency Management instead.

Gutierrez and McLaughlin penned a letter to the governor saying that one Uvalde family was at risk of having the power cut off in their home while their daughter was in the hospital. Other families have been offered compensation of two weeks’ pay, which Gutierrez and McLaughlin called “meager.”

“These families cannot begin to heal unless they are given time to grieve free from financial worry. There is no worse pain imaginable than losing a child. This pain is made all the more severe because of the way these children were killed and injured,” Gutierrez wrote in a statement. “In short, the State of Texas ought to use every available resource in law to make these families whole.”

Local and state officials opened the Uvalde Together Resiliency Center in June to provide long-term support services to Uvalde residents after a gunman killed 19 children and two educators at Robb Elementary on May 24. Resources offered at the center include crisis counseling, behavioral health care and child care services for survivors and first responders.

The governor’s public safety office made an initial $5 million investment to establish the center. It’s unclear how much the state has allocated for victims’ compensation benefits. In announcing the center’s opening, Abbott said the local district attorney would take the initial lead on services, coordinating efforts between local support organizations and state agencies.

[…]

McLaughlin and Gutierrez wrote in their letter that the district’s office is neither equipped nor staffed to provide adequate services.

I guess the reason to funnel these funds through the local DA is because DAs in general handle other victim compensation funds? I’m just guessing, please feel free to enlighten me otherwise. All I can say, speaking as a resident of Houston who lived through Hurricane Harvey, is that the recent track record of running relief funds intended for local recipients through a disconnected outside agency hasn’t been great.

Uvalde Mayor Urges Abbott To Look Into Police ‘Cover-Up’ Of Failed Response To Shooting.

Don McLaughlin, the mayor of Uvalde, Texas, is calling on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to address what McLaughlin called a “cover-up” by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) amid scrutiny over law enforcement’s failure to respond to the Robb Elementary School shooting.

McLaughlin told CNN Tuesday that he was writing to Abbott to share his concerns about the DPS’ investigation into the failed response to the massacre, during which more than a dozen children were killed inside two classrooms as multiple armed officers stood outside the hallway and the school building for more than an hour.

“I’m not confident, 100 percent, in DPS because I think it’s a cover-up,” McLaughlin said.

The mayor pointed specifically at DPS Director Steven McCraw, who repeatedly offered conflicting timelines for the attack, fueling already boiling criticism of law enforcement’s lack of transparency in the aftermath of the tragedy.

“McGraw’s covering up for maybe his agencies,” McLaughlin claimed.

The Uvalde leader explained that his growing distrust of the DPS’ investigation is what led him to ask the Justice Department to open its own investigation, which is currently underway.

“I lost confidence because the narrative changed from DPS so many times, and when we asked questions, we weren’t getting answers,” he said.

See here and here for some background. Just a reminder that polling has consistently shown majority disapproval of how Greg Abbott has handled the tragedy in Uvalde, and that DPS is 100% Abbott’s agency, run by one of his top minions.

Speaking of that report: Uvalde officer asked permission to shoot gunman outside school but got no answer, report finds.

An Uvalde police officer asked for a supervisor’s permission to shoot the gunman who would soon kill 21 people at Robb Elementary School in May before he entered the building, but the supervisor did not hear the request or responded too late, according to a report released Wednesday evaluating the law enforcement response to the shooting.

The request from the Uvalde officer, who was outside the school, about a minute before the gunman entered Robb Elementary had not been previously reported. The officer was reported to have been afraid of possibly shooting children while attempting to take out the gunman, according to the report released Wednesday by the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center in San Marcos.

The report provides a host of new details about the May 24 shooting, including several missed opportunities to engage or stop the gunman before he entered the school.

The lack of response to the officer’s request to shoot the suspect outside the school was the most significant new detail that the report revealed.

“A reasonable officer would conclude in this case, based upon the totality of the circumstances, that use of deadly force was warranted,” according to the report. The report referred to the Texas Penal Code, which states an individual is justified in using deadly force when the individual reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the commission of murder.

The report said one of the first responding officers — a Uvalde school district police officer — drove through the school’s parking lot “at a high rate of speed” and didn’t spot the gunman, who was still in the parking lot. The report said the officer might have seen the suspect if he had driven more slowly or parked his car at the edge of the school property and approached on foot.

The report also found flaws in how the school maintains security of the building. The report noted that propping doors open is a common practice in the school, a practice that “can create a situation that results in danger to students.” The exterior door the gunman used to enter the school had been propped open by a teacher, who then closed it before the gunman entered — but it didn’t lock properly.

The teacher did not check to see if the door was locked, the report said. The teacher also did not appear to have the proper equipment to lock the door even if she had checked. The report also notes that even if the door had locked properly, the suspect still could have gained access to the building by shooting out the glass in the door.

An audio analysis outlined in the report shows 100 rounds were fired in the first three minutes after the gunman entered rooms 111 and 112 — from 11:33 a.m. to 11:36 a.m.

The report highlighted other issues with the law enforcement response before the gunman — an 18-year-old Uvalde man — entered rooms 111 and 112 for the last time.

The gunman was seen by security cameras entering room 111, then leaving the room, then re-entering the room before officers arrived. The report determined that the lock on room 111 “was never engaged” because the lock required a key to be inserted from the hallway side of the door.

I was not able to find a copy of the report online, so these excerpts are the best we have for now. I can’t imagine what the parents and loved ones of the Uvalde victims are thinking and feeling right now. They were failed in so many ways. The very least we can do for them is give them the truth.

The empty “mental health” promise

What’s going on in Uvalde these days.

Days after the May 24 shooting, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott promised an “abundance of mental health services” to help “anyone in the community who needs it … the totality of anyone who lives in this community.” He said the services would be free. “We just want you to ask for them,” he said, before giving out the 24/7 hotline number — 888-690-0799.

That’s a tall order for a community in an area with a shortage of mental health resources, in a state that ranks last for overall access to mental health care, according to a 2022 State of Mental Health in America report.

Mental health organizations are assembling a collection of services to assist those who seek help in Uvalde. But there have been hiccups and hitches along the way.

There is worry that what’s being offered is not coming together as fast or efficiently as it could be, and that it’s being assembled without keeping in mind the community it serves: Many residents are lower income, and some may have difficulties with transportation, or are mainly Hispanic. Many are not accustomed to seeking out therapy, or are distrustful of who is providing it.

Quintanilla-Taylor didn’t believe many would use the mental health services and had doubts about their long term availability.

“It’s not going be prevalent. … I don’t trust the resources, and that’s coming from an educated person,” said Quintanilla-Taylor, who’s pursuing a doctorate in philosophy and specializing in organizational leadership at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

[…]

Uvalde County Commissioners, the countywide government body, voted Thursday to purchase a building to create the Uvalde Together Resiliency Center to serve as a hub for long-term services, such as crisis counseling and behavioral health care for survivors.

Abbott set aside $5 million in funding for the center, which has been operating at the county fairgrounds.

Texas Sen. Roland Gutierrez, whose vast district includes Uvalde, said the community needs continuity of care and rather than create a new building the state could invest in the existing local community health clinic, in operation for 40 years and already serving 11,000 uninsured Uvalde residents.

“These are people who have behavioral health on the ground. They actually have the one psychiatrist in Uvalde right here,” Gutierrez said Friday referring to the clinic. “We needed to have the budget so that we can bring in therapists, which we would have been able to do with that money. Instead, they’re starting from whole cloth this promised center you’re going to have the district attorney run?”

Gutierrez, who has shifted a district office from Eagle Pass to Uvalde, said he met with 11 families whose children survived the shootings and were either wounded or sent to the hospital.

“What the families have been telling me is they don’t want to see one therapist one week, a different one the following and another one yet maybe the next week,” he said. “So, they are having trouble with appointments, with continuity and that’s very, very important, especially when we are talking about young children.”

Gutierrez said he sent a letter to Abbott asking for $2 million for the existing free community clinic to provide crisis care but has not heard back.

I’ve discussed this before, and this is another illustration of the problem. We can count on hearing two things whenever there’s a mass shooting in Texas. One is the usual blather about guns and why restricting access to guns isn’t the answer. The other is a rush to talk about mental health, both as a means of explaining the shooter’s actions and now more regularly as an alternate mitigation for gun violence that doesn’t restrict access to guns. It was a big component of the Cornyn bill, and may have been a key to its passage since there’s no question that more mental health services and funding for those services are badly needed. I’m happy to see that happen, it’s just that we all know this is only one piece of a much larger puzzle.

From the state perspective, any and all talk of mental health and services for mental health that comes from our state leaders is guaranteed to be little more than hot air. We have the longstanding issue of healthcare in general being out of reach for too many people because of lack of insurance, and the continued resistance to expanding Medicaid, which would be the single biggest step forward in that regard. We have the also longstanding issue of healthcare in rural areas, from hospitals closing for lack of funds to scarcity of doctors in rural areas, a problem that was supposed to have been solved by the passage of the tort “reform” constitutional amendment nearly 20 years ago. More recently there was Abbott’s redirection of over $200 million in funds from the Department of Health and Human Services to his never-ending border boondoggle. At every opportunity, the Republican leadership has made it clear that they don’t care about funding healthcare in general, and mental health services in particular. But they are willing to use the promise of mental health services as a distraction when the next crisis hits. That’s where we are now, and where we will be again if nothing changes.

Uvalde versus DPS

Someone’s not happy.

Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin on Tuesday accused state authorities of selectively releasing information about last month’s school shooting to scapegoat local law enforcement and intentionally leaving out details about the state’s response to the massacre.

New details emerged this week about the timeline of the shooting based on surveillance video from the school’s hallways and a transcript of officers’ body cameras. The records show that officers might not have attempted to open the doors of the classrooms where the gunman had holed up with victims. During a state Senate committee held earlier Tuesday, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw told lawmakers that law enforcement’s response to the Uvalde school shooting was an “abject failure.”

McLaughlin lambasted McCraw for what he described as a selective release of information about the investigation, focusing on blaming local law enforcement and leaving out the role of McCraw’s agency during the shooting.

“McCraw has continued to, whether you want to call it, lie, leak … mislead or misstate information in order to distance his own troopers and rangers from the response,” McLaughlin said Tuesday evening.

McLaughlin said none of the entities with information about the investigation into the May 24 shooting at Robb Elementary School — DPS, the Texas Legislature, the Uvalde County District Attorney’s office and the FBI — have briefed Uvalde city officials about their findings.

McLaughlin said he had been asked to refrain from sharing details about the investigation while it was ongoing but said Tuesday he would now start releasing that information as it became available to city officials.

“The gloves are off. If we know it, we will share it,” he said.

McLaughlin’s comments at a special City Council meeting seemed to contradict a press release issued just hours before, in which the mayor had said city officials would refrain from commenting on the investigation “or reacting to every story attributed to unnamed sources or sources close to the investigation.”

I mean, Steve McCraw put all the blame on Pete Arredondo, so it’s not a big surprise that Uvalde’s mayor didn’t care for that. As a reminder, McLaughlin is the guy who got all mad at Beto O’Rourke when O’Rourke interrupted Greg Abbott’s press conference – you know, the one he held just before he headed out for a big fundraiser – to demand that Abbott do something in response to the massacre. This was back when Abbott and DPS were praising Arredondo and Uvalde police for their response, which is to say, back before any of the truth started coming out. McCraw, meanwhile, is a longtime hatchet man for Abbott and Rick Perry before him, and deserves exactly zero benefit of the doubt. This is a fight where you can root for both sides to lose with a clear conscience.

The real issue here is the coordinated resistance to releasing data about the police response to the mass shooting. This is the appropriate response to that.

Sen. Roland Gutierrez

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, who represents Uvalde, is suing the Texas Department of Public Safety over records related to the deadly shooting at Robb Elementary last month.

“In the wake of the senseless tragedy, the people of Uvalde and Texas have demanded answers from their government. To date, they have been met with lies, misstatements, and shifts of blame,” Gutierrez said in a lawsuit filed Wednesday.

State and local Uvalde officials have fought the release of records that could provide clarity around the botched emergency response to the shooting that killed 19 children and two educators. Law enforcement responding to the shooting waited more than an hour on the scene before breaking into the classroom to kill the shooter.

Gutierrez said he filed an open records request on May 31 for documentation about police presence and ballistics at the shooting, and he still has not received a response. Per state law, DPS had 10 business days to either respond or make a case to the attorney general.

[…

Abbott’s office on Tuesday said all information related to the shooting has been shared with the public or is in the expedited process of being released. Full results of the ongoing investigation by the Texas Rangers and the FBI will also be made public, according to the governor’s office.

That same day, Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin said city officials have been left out of briefings related to the investigation from entities, such as DPS, the Texas Legislature, the Uvalde County District Attorney’s office and the FBI.

Sen. Gutierrez’s press release is here and a copy of the lawsuit is here. I cannot wait to see what response the defendants make to this. The Chron has more.

UPDATE: Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District police Chief Pete Arredondo has been placed on administrative leave by the district.