January, 2009:

Public service announcement: Next Saturday, February 7, from 9 AM to 1 PM at Covenant Baptist Church (4949 Caroline, see map), the group Health Care For All Texas will be holding a workshop on “Health Reform: An Opportunity to Address Economy, Health and Equity”. The goals are to discuss health reform basics, to debunk health care myths, and to promote civic participation. More information is available in this flyer (Word doc).

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, having seen what a farce the gubernatorial-selection process for replacing Senators has been this year, proposes to do something about it:

The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.

He goes into greater detail here.

I do not make this proposal lightly. In fact, I have opposed dozens of constitutional amendments during my time in the Senate, particularly those that would have interfered with the Bill of Rights. The Constitution should not be treated like a rough draft. Constitutional amendments should be considered only when a statutory remedy to a problem is not available, and when the impact of the issue at hand on the structure of our government, the safety, welfare, or freedoms of our citizens, or the survival of our democratic republic is so significant that an amendment is warranted. This is such a case.

The fact that the people of four states, comprising over 12 percent of the entire population of the country, will be represented for the next two years by someone they did not elect is contrary to the purpose of the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of Senators. That is not to say that people appointed to Senate seats are not capable of serving, or will not do so honorably. I have no reason to question the fitness for office of any of the most recent appointees, and I look forward to working with them. But people who want to be a U.S. Senator should have to make their case to the people whom they want to represent, not just the occupant of the governor’s mansion. And the voters should choose them in the time-honored way that they choose the rest of the Congress of the United States.

This proposal is not simply a response to these latest cases. Those cases have simply confirmed my longstanding view that Senate appointments by state governors are an unfortunate relic of the time when state legislatures elected U.S. Senators. This system was replaced by direct elections by the citizens of each state following the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Direct election of Senators was championed by the great progressive Bob La Follette, who served as Wisconsin’s Governor and a U.S. Senator. Indeed, my state of Wisconsin is now one of only three states (Oregon and Massachusetts are the others) that require a special election to fill a Senate vacancy. But the vast majority of states still rely on the appointment system. Changing this system state by state would be a long and difficult process, particularly since Governors have the power to veto state statutes that would take this power away from them. We need to finish the job started by La Follette and other reformers nearly a century ago. Nobody can represent the people in the House of Representatives without the approval of the voters. The same should be true for the Senate.

I think this makes a lot of sense, and even if it never gets officially ratified, I think Feingold’s actions may spur more states to change their own processes. For what it’s worth, I think Texas’ process of an appointment followed by a special election on the next uniform election date is good enough for these purposes. I’d rather have someone in office for the few months it takes for the next election date to roll around than have only one Senator represent the state. But clearly a two-year appointment, however well-intentioned and however well-qualified the appointee may be, just doesn’t cut it any more. I hope this proposal gets plenty of traction.

We may get some cleaner air to breathe here in Texas thanks to California and President Obama.

Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to review the Bush administration’s refusal to allow California and 13 other states to set the nation’s toughest vehicle emissions standards.

During a ceremony in the White House East Room, Obama signed a directive requiring the agency immediately to review that December 2007 decision denying California permission to limit carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks.

“The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Obama said.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, who pushed unsuccessfully for tougher car emissions standards in the 2007 legislative session, says his measure may have a better chance this session now that one key obstacle — federal opposition — is likely to disappear.

“It’s an uphill battle to get the votes in the House and in the Senate,” Ellis acknowledged. “But on my side in the Senate, members who in the past were very reluctant to consider environmental legislation have gotten much more educated, as I’ve seen in private conversations.”

Ellis’ legislation would adopt all of California’s proposed emissions standards, as the 13 other states already have and several more are considering.

Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, has filed an identical bill in the House.

The bills in question are SB119 and HB776. I don’t know that this will give them a leg up, but it does at least knock down one objection to them. We know Speaker Straus is much more open to green legislation than Tom Craddick was. If Sen. Ellis’ assessment of his colleagues is accurate, then who knows?

Adopting the California standard in Texas would cost new-car buyers about $7 more per month if they financed a car over five years, Ellis said, but they would save up to $18 per month in fuel costs based on $1.74 per gallon of gas.

Many industry groups expressed opposition to the administration’s move.

The American Petroleum Institute said it “supports President Obama’s desire to fortify the nation’s energy security with a comprehensive energy policy” and said that since 2000 the oil and gas industry has invested $42 billion in “zero- and low-carbon” research and development. But the action contemplated in Monday’s announcement isn’t the best approach, the group said.

“Creating a patchwork regulatory structure across multiple states would most likely impose higher costs on consumers, slow economic growth and kill U.S. jobs,” the trading group said in a statement.

And carmakers have complained that developing vehicles that comply would cost billions of dollars.

But if the EPA agrees to California’s standards, Texas likely will be affected regardless of whether the Legislature approves Ellis’ measure. The 14 states that have adopted the tougher emissions standards represent more than half the nation’s population, so the practical effect of EPA approval of California’s rules would be to force automakers to raise fuel efficiency standards across their fleet.

Yeah, that would seem to be the obvious answer to the automakers’ complaint. I mean, nobody is forcing them to maintain two different standards. And let’s face it, when it comes to environmental matters, these guys are a bunch of weasels who generally need to be forced to do the right thing. So forgive me if I am unmoved by their argument.