Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

April, 2009:

Bait and switch on Voter ID

So that “compromise” voter ID legislation? It’s not something its author is going to go to the mat for.

[Rep. Todd] Smith said he is prepared to fight for his plan but added that if the choice is between an Indiana-style photo ID bill or nothing at all, he would vote for a photo ID bill.

“The reason I take that position,” he said, “is it’s very clear that my constituents want something done on the security side of elections.”

As Todd Hill notes, it was just last month that Smith said “I don’t think there is any chance we’ll be proposing the Indiana law on the House floor.” So much for that! Well, the Lone Star Project did predict in March that Smith would pull the bait and switch. I suppose nobody should be surprised at this.

First they came for the science books…

The State Board of Education strikes again.

The Texas State Board of Education is set to appoint a social studies curriculum “expert” panel that includes absurdly unqualified ideologues who are hostile to public education and argue that laws and public policies should be based on their narrow interpretations of the Bible.

TFN has obtained the names of “experts” appointed by far-right state board members. Those panelists will guide the revision of social studies curriculum standards for Texas public schools. They include David Barton of the fundamentalist, Texas-based group WallBuilders, whose degree is in religious education, not the social sciences, and the Rev. Peter Marshall of Peter Marshall Ministries in Massachusetts, who suggests that California wildfires and Hurricane Katrina were divine punishments for tolerance of homosexuality.

The two have argued that the Constitution doesn’t protect separation of church and state and hold a variety of other extreme views related to religion, education and government, TFN President Kathy Miller said.

Just read the whole thing, and shake your head in wonder once again at the clown show that is the SBOE. I suppose we should be grateful that the math textbooks aren’t up for review or we might be arguing about whether or not pi equals three.

By the way, the confirmation of SBOE Chair Don McLeroy is officially dead, as there are enough votes to block it, and not enough time left in the session to bother having a floor fight. McLeroy will still be on the SBOE, and Governor Perry will just make another recess appointment afterward, so the practical effect is nil. But it’s a dishonor that McLeroy richly deserves nonetheless. The Observer has more.

And here we have the “compromise” voter ID legislation

The AusChron has the scoop. Here are the differences between Todd Smith’s “compromise” voter ID bill and the Senate-passed SB362.

[Differences include:]

  • provisions for voter education on the new ID requirements
  • training for poll workers
  • a report to the Lege on what demographic groups are affected
  • language specifying that there is no guarantee that a provisional ballot will be counted
  • the law wouldn’t take effect until 2013
  • the creation of signature verification committees that would check affidavit signatures against registration records
  • the bill would not take effect unless the Lege appropriates $7.5 million to fund voter registration efforts

They report than State Rep. Rafael Anchia is “not impressed”, which tells me all I need to know, and that Republican Linda Harper Brown says 2013 is “too late”. I continue to hope that this will die a messy death. Keep your fingers crossed.

Statewide smoking ban stalled

It may be a bit premature to write its obituary, but not by much.

Sen. Jane Nelson said she is in no rush to push a proposed statewide smoking ban through her Senate Health and Human Services Committee on Tuesday. The remarks came as supporters spent a day lobbying for the measure at the capitol, holding a press conference and filling a committee hearing to standing room only on a House version of the measure

“We have a month to go,” said Nelson, R-Lewisville, a ban supporter. “It’s not like the session ends tomorrow.”

The proposals, sponsored by Rep. Myra Crownover, R-Denton, in the House and Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, in the Senate, would ban smoking across Texas, with some exceptions, such as private residences, sections of nursing homes and some clubs. Supporters stress that there is a proven danger in second-hand smoke. Opponents argue it would violate personal liberty.

But Nelson said given the Senate’s backlog, she’d rather focus on bills that are more likely to pass and wants the House to move first. Rep. Burt Solomons, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee, where House version of the bill waits for a vote, said he does not support a statewide ban and is yet to gauge committee support.

Ellis said he has the votes to get the bill to the full Senate and has already asked Nelson for a vote.

The Senate’s calendar isn’t as crowded as the House’s, but this is crunch time, and I at least don’t see bright prospects for anything that isn’t out of committee soon. Especially given that the House version of the bill is in a committee headed by an opponent of the measure, who hasn’t brought it up yet. Here’s the Star-Telegram‘s take:

Earlier Tuesday, supporters of the ban ratcheted up pressure on lawmakers to vote on the legislation by delivering almost 10,000 petition signatures to the Capitol.

“The clock is ticking,” said Cass Wheeler, a retired CEO of the American Heart Association who represents the group Smoke-Free Texas. “We are here to remind Texas lawmakers that Texans want a smoke-free state.”

[…]

The Texas Restaurant Association’s board of directors has supported the statewide ban, saying it would level the playing field.

Before the committee hearing, Flower Mound Mayor Jody Smith stood with Wheeler outside the Senate chamber at a news conference calling on the House and Senate committees to send the bills to the floor for votes.

Flower Mound adopted a local smoking ban that took effect Jan. 1, and she said the outcome should give lawmakers the “strength to pass these bills” even though they have detractors.

Many Flower Mound businesses that initially resisted the ban have changed their minds and “now are calling our office to say, ‘Thank you, my business is thriving,’ ” Smith said.

Twenty-five other states have already enacted statewide smoking bans, Wheeler said.

Smoke-Free America said it took a poll in January that found that 68 percent of Texans support a statewide ban.

Despite the apparent popularity of the ban and the support of the restaurant lobby, this doesn’t look to me like it’s going anywhere. I thought this session would be different, what with all the local action on the smoke-free front, but I guess not.

Poker bill in trouble?

Well, that would suck.

Rep. Jose Menendez’ bill to legalize poker in Texas is looking less than likely. Menendez’ bill made it out of the House committee that oversees gambling issues. But he said unless he “can ratchet it back” — limiting poker rooms to racetracks and Indian reservations, for example — it’s unlikely to get out of the influential House committee that sets the chamber’s calendar, where it’s been sitting for a couple of weeks. Menendez said if the bill gets to the House floor, it only needs a simple majority to pass. That said, the bill risks Gov. Rick Perry’s veto if it expands the footprint of gaming in Texas.

“I’m still hopeful,” Menendez said. “We’ve got a little time left.”

If HB222 becomes a calendars casualty, it will be one of very many. That’s just the way it goes in the Lege, even in years that are less rushed at the end than this. Still, I’ll be sorry to see this die.

On the other hand, maybe it could be added as an amendment to the omnibus gambling resolution.

House Licensing and Administrative Procedures Chair Edmund Kuempel on Tuesday released a *draft* copy of the gambling constitutional amendment his committee is considering voting out.

The measure, if it has the support in the Legislature, would allow Texans to vote in November to authorize legalized gambling in Texas. Individual communities would also have to hold local option elections to open gambling in their areas.

The partner legislation lawmakers are considering could open the door to up to 17 casinos in Texas. It could also legalize slot machines at racetracks and gaming at state Indian reservations.

Kuempel’s staff stresses that the language is still in draft form; changes aren’t unlikely. The chairman has said the measures won’t come up in the House unless he knows he’s got 100 votes. Late last week, he was still about 10 away.

I still think 17 casinos may be too many, but that’s not worth worrying about at this time. I don’t know what the odds are of Kuempel getting to 100 votes, though I suppose adding to the bill is more likely to subtract support than add it. Still, if the Tigua casinos can be added to this resolution, maybe poker can as well. We’ll see.

“Groundless” campaign finance complaints

I’m a bit wary of this.

The House tentatively approved Rep. Will Hartnett’s proposal to hold people liable who file false and “groundless” complaints with the Texas Ethics Commission just before an election.

Today’s 84-54 second-reading vote gave a tentative green light to House Bill 677. If passed, members of the public and candidates who file complaints with the Ethics Commission 30 days before an election would be responsible for the subject of the complaint’s defense fees if the commission finds the claims incorrect, “groundless” and “frivolous.”

The idea is to discourage the use of media coverage to change an election, said Hartnett, R-Dallas. Since it takes the commission several weeks to investigate a claim, political opponents often file a complaint and leak the document to the press, resulting in headlines, altered public perception and frequently, a new victor in the election, the representative said.

“If it’s a good complaint, they can file it without any concern,” Hartnett said. “You only have to pay the attorney’s fees if the claims are groundless.”

But many lawmakers said the proposal could have a “chilling effect” on legitimate complaints. The reason, said Rep. Chris Turner, D-Burleson, is that people will have to consider the financial repercussions if their claim turns out to be wrong, since terms like “groundless” are not legally defined.

“There’s no way to predict what the Ethics Commission is going to do,” Turner said. “It sets up a barrier to the public to hold us accountable.”

Though the story says a “member of the public” could be held liable, the text of the bill limits it to:

(A) a candidate in the election;
(B) a specific-purpose committee, as defined by Section 251.001, Election Code, that supports only a candidate in the election; or
(C) the campaign treasurer of a committee described by Paragraph (B).

That somewhat lessens my concern. As John Coby noted back in January that leaves a lot of room:

Unfortunately this will not stop complaints filed prior to an election since a PAC or campaign can ask someone not affiliated with the PAC or campaign to file the bill and this person would not come under this bill. If this bill was modified to include everyone, it will pretty much stop anyone from filing a complaint.

I can see where Rep. Hartnett is coming from on this, and I can see Rep. Turner’s objections. Ultimately, I don’t know how much effect a bill like this might have, one way or another.

Separating the Permanent School Fund from the SBOE

The State Board of Education continues to be as popular as swine flu in the Lege.

Thanks to Rep. Donna Howard’s HJR 77, which passed the House today, Texas taxpayers get to vote on who will manage the Permanent School Fund.

Right now, the fund, which provides a significant chunk of funding to Texas public schools, is managed by the State Board of Education. Howard’s constitutional amendment would create a separate body, made up of people with actual financial management and investment expertise, to manage the fund.

Rep. Wayne Christian protested, saying the fund has earned returns near those of other state funds, such as the Teacher’s Retirement Fund. But Howard pointed out that two different agencies have recommended establishing a body to oversee the fund.

It might be a good time for some ch-ch-ch-changes. The fund lost a bunch o’ money in the stock market with the financial crisis, so entrusting what’s left of it to a more experienced group is not such a bad idea.

As TFN Insider notes, the enabling legislation also passed the House, so all that’s needed is a Senate vote. Between this and the confirmation of Don McLeroy as Chair twisting in the wind, it’s been a rough week for the SBOE. Which is fine by me.

The voter ID “compromise” bill

Here we go.

The voter identification bill likely to reach the House floor would allow Texans to cast ballots if they can show two forms of non-photo ID, despite pressure from many Republican members to require picture identification for all voters. Rep. Todd Smith’s compromise bill – circulated on the House floor this morning – also calls for increased funding for voter registration, greater acceptance of provisional ballots and a four year transition into the new voter identification system, lawmakers who received copies of it said.

The bill is expected to be considered by the House Elections Committee, which Smith chairs, this weekend, and could come up in the House as early as next week.

Smith’s current legislation is similar to the voter ID bill that passed the Senate – a bill that would allow voters to produce two non-photo IDs in lieu of a photo ID. One key difference: Smith’s bill allows for a four-year phase in of the new rules, while the bill the GOP-dominated Senate passed requires them by the 2010 elections.

Gardner Selby has more.

—Smith envisions any voter who doesn’t completely fulfill the ID requirements getting to cast a ballot that would be counted later than regular ballots, if their signature at the polling place matches their signature on the voter’s voter registration application or another public record in the possession of their county’s voter registrar.

A twist: Smith’s rewrite leaves the verification of signatures to local signature verification committees consisting of five voters or more, chosen on nomination by the local Democratic and Republican county chairs. Each board is to be chaired by a nominee from the party whose gubernatorial candidate drew the most local votes in the latest governor’s election. The committees would be appointed by the early voting ballot board, which I suspect exists now in each county.

—Smith’s version would not take effect unless the Legislature appropriates $7.5 million in 2010-11 to register voters.

I’ll say this much for Smith, he hasn’t (yet) bowed to pressure from his fellow Republicans, who seem bent on making voting a damn-near punitive experience. He still hasn’t gone far enough for me to consider his alternative acceptable – sorry, but same day voter registration is a must-have for anything to be considered – but it seems clear he’s listened to Democratic concerns and is at least making some effort to accommodate. Which isn’t to say I trust him, but he hasn’t gone over the edge and that’s something. I suspect he’s also aware of the fact that the GOP wet dream legislation almost surely doesn’t have the votes to pass the House. Keep an eye on that list of pledge signers – if Tommy Merritt and Delwyn Jones show up, then it’s a whole new ballgame, but until then I think there’s a decent chance the House won’t pass anything too horrible. Which makes me a lot more optimistic than I was in the beginning. I still want this whole thing to die a messy death amid savage Republican infighting. But if that’s not going to happen, passing something relatively toothless would be a victory, especially given how this session began.

UPDATE: Vince has more.

Clean Air update

Some news of interest from ACT Texas:

The House Committee on Environmental Regulation will hear important clean air bills today including SB 16 – Senator Averitt’s omnibus clean air and energy efficiency bill. Several address flaws in the TCEQ permitting process. (TCEQ was already in the news this week when Senators Shapleigh, Davis, Ellis and Watson held a press conference on “cleaning up the mess at TCEQ.“)

[…]

Representative Donna Howard’s HB 721 addresses one of the more difficult challenges in the fight for clean air: keeping affected counties (areas that are designated as having poor air quality under the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan but have not yet reached non-attainment status) from going into non-attainment. Translation: cities such as Waco, Austin and San Antonio are not in the same category for air quality monitoring and measures as are Dallas, Fort Worth and Houston, but they’re on what amounts to a watch list. All three cities and surrounding counties are fighting to keep from going into non-attainment. However, the permitting process in affected areas currently does not require assessing the cumulative impact of proposed power plants on the area’s ozone level.

SB 16 has measures that will require cumulative impact analysis for any new power plants proposed to be built in non-attainment areas – an absolutely necessary tool for these areas which are at risk of losing federal highway funds as the result of non-compliance with federal clean air standards. However, what’s missing in the Texas clean air picture are better permitting rules that will help other cities keep their air quality from deteriorating.

There’s a real irony at work here: a city must have a severe air quality problem before it qualifies for the type of measures that could have kept its air quality from deteriorating in the first place. And at that point, the things it must do have become far more costly and difficult than they would have been if the factors that were contributing to the ozone problem had been addressed before reaching this critical point.

Currently, the only way counties and cities can get all the resources possible to clean their air is to be in non-attainment. The improvements proposed in SB 16 are also limited to non-attainment areas. These measures, including stricter permitting rules such as cumulative impact analysis, are not available to counties trying to prevent more severe air quality issues. This situation has been brought up in testimony before House Environmental Regulation time and time again. After a while, it begins to have the feel of a chicken and egg story. HB 721 would end that story by giving Texans the tools they need to keep their air from getting so polluted in the first place.

Isn’t an ounce of prevention supposed to be worth a pound of cure?

(Emphasis in original.) Yes, I sure think so. SB16 has already passed the Senate, with the Harris County GOP contingent solidifying its objectively pro-dirty air credentials. Seems to me that the approach outlined here would be a big long-run cost saver, since preventing a mess is almost always a lot cheaper than cleaning one up. Not to mention the enormous health benefits, making these cities and the state as a whole more attractive to those looking to relocate, and so on. But who cares about that when you have an ideology to support and a pile of pollution lobby cash to hoard?

The Speaker speaks, and a Voter ID update

So how is Speaker Joe Straus doing?

Three months into his first term leading the 150-member chamber, Republican Speaker Joe Straus is emerging as a bipartisan compromise-seeker, rejecting much of the power that his predecessor so coveted.

Straus still faces some tough tests, but just four years after Craddick was anointed as the most powerful Texan by Texas Monthly magazine, observers say the young GOP leader has shifted power back to the House.

“Not some, probably all,” said Rep. Tommy Merritt, a Longview Republican when asked if the speaker has given up some of the office’s power. “He’s doing exactly what a good speaker should do. He’s wielding the gavel and trying to make fair rulings to make the will of the House work for Texas.”

Straus’ first big victory came last week when the normally raucous House unanimously approved the $178 billion budget. It was the first time in a decade that the usually thorny state budget came out with 149-0 approval.

In a rare sit-down, on-the-record interview with The Associated Press, Straus said the unanimous vote was the result of weeks of negotiations and compromise.

“No one, right or left, Republican or Democrat, urban or rural, is going to crush somebody by sheer force this session,” said Straus, the state’s first Jewish speaker.

I’d say that’s a fair interpretation. As I’ve said before, Straus hasn’t been exactly what I’d hoped for in a non-Tom Craddick Speaker, but he’s still a lot better than Tom Craddick. The House has been remarkably free of strife, and more importantly it’s been completely free of attempts by the Speaker to impose his will on everything in his path. That’s as much a function of the near-even split as anything else, but the point is that Craddick couldn’t have managed under those conditions; he would have been what he has always been. The House would have been a disaster area with him in charge.

Of course, there’s still a lot of time left, and at least one big stinking partisan blob of an “issue” that remains unresolved.

Lately, Straus has been working to forge a compromise on an effort to strengthen voter identification requirements, a measure so divisive it sparked partisan meltdown in the Senate and triggered threats of lawsuits.

The legislation is expected to be debated by the House within the next couple of weeks. But by many accounts, a House compromise is on the horizon. Unlike the Senate, Straus said, the House wasn’t going to “pull the pin on the grenade and be irresponsible, which I think they were.”

“They just didn’t care about the consequences of the emotional side of it,” he said. “And we’re trying to be deliberate and slow … we’re trying to find solutions, not just talking points for somebody’s political agenda.”

Rep. Aaron Pena writes that voter ID could be on the agenda for the Elections Committee as early as tomorrow, with some kind of compromise voter ID bill to be debated. That’s assuming that the whole thing doesn’t get blown up by the Republican hardcore, as documented by Gardner Selby:

I’m hearing from Capitol sources that Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless, privately told GOP colleagues today he’d reached closure on his intended-to-be-a-compromise version of voter ID legislation and might even issue an afternoon press release saying so.

To which, some Republicans reportedly reacted: “Whoa, Nelly (or Toddy).”

Their beef: They’d prefer not to see Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Elections, running out a softened-up approach that they don’t think meets the intended ID mandate.

True, it’d be a painful political boomerang for Republicans to see House Democrats (on the short end of the 76-74 House split between the parties) wrest control of the GOP’s most-valued legislative proposal (though the flip side, perhaps fueling Smith’s hunt for common ground, is that if the Senate-approved version of voter ID isn’t tweaked, he could fall short of getting the proposal out of his committee or off the House floor; tough cookies).

Until Smith speaks out (yup, I’ve tried to reach him), I’m left with separate statements from Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell, who takes a hard line on the voter ID front, and from 51 House Republicans (including Brown) similarly saying they’re not interested in phasing in changes or making it easier for most anyone to vote without presenting proof of their identity.

GOP blow-up? I’m waiting to hear more.

For what it’s worth, Rep. Smith says it was all sweetness and light when he addressed the caucus about his bill. Sure it was. I can’t think of a better resolution to this mess than a GOP implosion as no bill gets passed because the hardliners refuse to accept a compromise, while their version fails to get enough votes. Nothing could illustrate the point that this is all just a naked partisan power grab than that. Form a circle, Republicans, and load up those AK-47s! We’ll start popping the popcorn now.

CHIP and Medicaid advance

Good news for CHIP and Medicaid.

The House Committee on Human Services approved a measure that would expand eligibility for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a move the bill’s author, Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said would add 80,000 children to the program.

The bill would allow certain families earning more than the current income limit — about $44,000 for a family of four — to pay to join the program.

The Senate Finance Committee passed a measure by Sen. Kip Averitt, R-Waco, that would also allow families above the income limit to pay to join CHIP, though it differs from Coleman’s bill.

The House panel also passed a measure by state Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, that would allow families to stay in children’s Medicaid for a full year rather than having to reapply every six months.

The first bill is HB2962, the Averitt bill appears to be SB841, and I can’t tell what the Turner bill is. Here’s a statement from Rep. Garnet Coleman’s about what happened:

State Representative Garnet F. Coleman (D-Houston), who helped create the original Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), applauds Chairman Patrick Rose and the members of the House Committee on Health and Human Services for voting out CSHB 2962, which is a positive step in restoring CHIP coverage to its intended levels. Rep. Coleman also applauds the efforts of the members of the House Appropriations Committee for providing the funding to make this possible.

This bill is a collaborative product of the efforts of several members of the legislature, as well as other Texans concerned with the high number of uninsured children in the state,” said Rep. Coleman. “It is estimated that this legislation will help insure 80,000 of Texas’ neediest children.”

CSHB 2962 expands CHIP eligibility to include children from families earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The bill includes a buy in option, at no cost to the state, for children from families with a net income up to 400 percent above the federal poverty level, who were previously enrolled in CHIP but lose coverage due to an increase in income.

Currently, children from families at 150% above the federal poverty level enrolled in CHIP are required to verify that their allowable assets do not exceed $10,000. CSHB 2962 raises the check for allowable assets to families earning 250% of the federal poverty level, and raised allowable assets to $20,000. Additionally, it exempts the value of one car from being included in determining families’ assets for CHIP.

“A vehicle is a lifeline for families, and should not be considered an asset when determining health coverage,” said Rep. Coleman. “Families need to drive to get to work, to get food, and to take their children to school.”

CSHB 2962 also excludes child support payments and assets in college savings plans from being considered when determining eligibility for programs like CHIP and Medicaid.

“These changes will encourage families to invest in the future of their children’s education, without fear that their investment will cause them to lose their health care,” said Rep. Coleman.

This is an extension of HB109 from the 2007 Lege, which restored the one-year enrollment period but did not relax the assets restrictions. I believe this would still leave us short of the levels we had before the 2003 decimation, but it’s a big step forward and we’d be closer than ever if this passes. Let’s hope it keeps the momentum going forward.

CHIP and Medicaid advance

Good news for CHIP and Medicaid.

The House Committee on Human Services approved a measure that would expand eligibility for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a move the bill’s author, Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said would add 80,000 children to the program.

The bill would allow certain families earning more than the current income limit — about $44,000 for a family of four — to pay to join the program.

The Senate Finance Committee passed a measure by Sen. Kip Averitt, R-Waco, that would also allow families above the income limit to pay to join CHIP, though it differs from Coleman’s bill.

The House panel also passed a measure by state Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, that would allow families to stay in children’s Medicaid for a full year rather than having to reapply every six months.

The first bill is HB2962, the Averitt bill appears to be SB841, and I can’t tell what the Turner bill is. Here’s a statement from Rep. Garnet Coleman’s about what happened:

State Representative Garnet F. Coleman (D-Houston), who helped create the original Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), applauds Chairman Patrick Rose and the members of the House Committee on Health and Human Services for voting out CSHB 2962, which is a positive step in restoring CHIP coverage to its intended levels. Rep. Coleman also applauds the efforts of the members of the House Appropriations Committee for providing the funding to make this possible.

This bill is a collaborative product of the efforts of several members of the legislature, as well as other Texans concerned with the high number of uninsured children in the state,” said Rep. Coleman. “It is estimated that this legislation will help insure 80,000 of Texas’ neediest children.”

CSHB 2962 expands CHIP eligibility to include children from families earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The bill includes a buy in option, at no cost to the state, for children from families with a net income up to 400 percent above the federal poverty level, who were previously enrolled in CHIP but lose coverage due to an increase in income.

Currently, children from families at 150% above the federal poverty level enrolled in CHIP are required to verify that their allowable assets do not exceed $10,000. CSHB 2962 raises the check for allowable assets to families earning 250% of the federal poverty level, and raised allowable assets to $20,000. Additionally, it exempts the value of one car from being included in determining families’ assets for CHIP.

“A vehicle is a lifeline for families, and should not be considered an asset when determining health coverage,” said Rep. Coleman. “Families need to drive to get to work, to get food, and to take their children to school.”

CSHB 2962 also excludes child support payments and assets in college savings plans from being considered when determining eligibility for programs like CHIP and Medicaid.

“These changes will encourage families to invest in the future of their children’s education, without fear that their investment will cause them to lose their health care,” said Rep. Coleman.

This is an extension of HB109 from the 2007 Lege, which restored the one-year enrollment period but did not relax the assets restrictions. I believe this would still leave us short of the levels we had before the 2003 decimation, but it’s a big step forward and we’d be closer than ever if this passes. Let’s hope it keeps the momentum going forward.

I hate you! Now gimme some money!

Damn those Washington elites! Always stuffing money into my pants campaign coffers!

Rick Perry has railed against Washington, but when it comes to campaign cash, the governor has raised far more than rival Kay Bailey Hutchison from the nation’s capital.

Perry has collected $2.7 million from Washington since becoming governor – four times more than Hutchison’s $670,000 from Washington during the same period, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds.

The money has come from political communities, lobbyists, individuals and interest groups.

[…]

Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner said the governor’s critique of Washington is limited to political spending, not political contributors.

“He’s talking about elected officials who vote for earmarks, bailouts and out-of-control spending – that’s what he’s referring to when he talks about the problems of Washington,” Miner said.

I got nothing.

I hate you! Now gimme some money!

Damn those Washington elites! Always stuffing money into my pants campaign coffers!

Rick Perry has railed against Washington, but when it comes to campaign cash, the governor has raised far more than rival Kay Bailey Hutchison from the nation’s capital.

Perry has collected $2.7 million from Washington since becoming governor – four times more than Hutchison’s $670,000 from Washington during the same period, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds.

The money has come from political communities, lobbyists, individuals and interest groups.

[…]

Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner said the governor’s critique of Washington is limited to political spending, not political contributors.

“He’s talking about elected officials who vote for earmarks, bailouts and out-of-control spending – that’s what he’s referring to when he talks about the problems of Washington,” Miner said.

I got nothing.

Get ready for the next school funding lawsuit

The handwriting is on the wall.

Property tax cuts and a stingy state budget have left many Texas school districts saying they are short-changing children and warning of another lawsuit attempt to force reforms.

Texas lawmakers plan to increase school spending, but a skeptical education community isn’t sure it will be enough to cover costs or close growing funding gaps between school districts.

Lawmakers cut property taxes three years ago in school finance changes ordered by the Texas Supreme Court, largely freezing school revenue at 2006 levels. Today, school funding has grown dramatically less equitable and an estimated 40 percent of the state’s 1,040 school districts are running deficits, requiring them to dip into reserve funds.

A recent report by the non-partisan Legislative Budget Board indicates school funding is more inequitable today than it was when lawmakers reformed the system.

[…]

“We have people in desperate straits,” said Wayne Pierce, head of the Equity Center, which represents about 900 low- and mid-property-wealth districts.

“There’s a good chance, if they don’t do this right, people who have held off in filing a lawsuit will start thinking seriously about it,” Pierce said.

I forget where I came across it, but I recently saw an observation that the state of Texas has never embarked on school finance reform without being forced to do so by a lawsuit first. I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a lousy way to do business.

As state law has forced local tax rates down to a maximum of $1.04 per $100 property valuation for maintenance and operations, poorer districts are getting less total revenue unless they persuade voters to raise taxes.

Committees in both the Senate and House are considering school finance bills, including a plan by Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, that has been embraced by school districts.

It has a larger price tag than the one Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, is pushing in the House, or than another one by Senate Public Education Chair Florence Shapiro, R-Plano.

“I don’t think school districts in Texas will ever get all the money they need,” said Hochberg.

“I’m particularly concerned that we are still under-funding what it takes for a school district to be successful with the most challenging kids,” he said.

So as we ponder the billions of dollars we’ve spent on property tax cuts and not spent on fixing and improving our schools, here’s a report from McKinsey about the economic impact of the education gap, via Matt Yglesias:

If the United States had in recent years closed the gap between its educational achievement levels and those of better-performing nations such as Finland and Korea, GDP in 2008 could have been $1.3 trillion to $2.3 trillion higher. This represents 9 to 16 percent of GDP.

If the gap between black and Latino student performance and white student performance had been similarly narrowed, GDP in 2008 would have been between $310 billion and $525 billion higher, or 2 to 4 percent of GDP. The magnitude of this impact will rise in the years ahead as demographic shifts result in blacks and Latinos becoming a larger proportion of the population and workforce.

If the gap between low-income students and the rest had been similarly narrowed, GDP in 2008 would have been $400 billion to $670 billion higher, or 3 to 5 percent of GDP.

If the gap between America’s low-performing states and the rest had been similarly narrowed, GDP in 2008 would have been $425 billion to $700 billion higher, or 3 to 5 percent of GDP.

Emphasis in original. All these achievements could have been realized with a far smaller investment than the payoff. How much better shape would we be in today if we truly recognized the value of high quality schooling for everyone? This is a far, far better job creation engine than the Texas Enterprise Fund, and yet our Governor, who claims to be all about economic growth and job creation, would never consider making the kind of investment in public schools that would yield these results. And so we get what we don’t pay for, and we wonder why school finance reform is always on the agenda.

The Keller impeachment resolution

Rep. Lon Burnam’s resolution to impeach Judge Sharon Keller was scheduled to get a hearing Monday. Burnam vowed that it would come to a vote on the House floor.

If that resolution does not move in committee, Burnam said he will seek a majority vote for impeachment on the House floor. But he said he will make an impeachment motion even if he is not sure of winning.

“I’d rather lose the vote than not have the vote,” Burnam declared.

Burnam said a House vote on impeachment would immediately remove Keller from the bench while she awaited a trial in the state Senate.

He said the judicial conduct commission could take another 18 months to act. Even if the commission finds against Keller, Burnam said, the punishment could range from a slap on the wrist to removal from office.

Burnam said immediate action is needed when life and death matters are at stake in the judicial system.

The hearing started at 10 PM and ran until 12:30, so there isn’t much news coverage about what happened in the hearing. The Star Telegram has some information.

[Rep. Burnam] presented witnesses to reinforce his claim that Judge Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, committed “a gross neglect of duty and willing disregard for human life” by refusing the keep the court’s office open after hours to accept a Death Row appeal. The inmate, Michael Richard, was executed hours later.

“What she did was so outrageous,” retired state appeals court Justice Michol O’Connor of Houston said as she waited to testify on behalf of Burnam’s motion.

[…]

Burnam told reporters that he plans to force a vote by the full 150-member House even if the committee rejects his motion. He says he has the right to do so under House rules. “I can bring it up at any time,” Burnam said.

Austin attorney Charles Herring Jr., an expert on legal ethics issues who has advised the Texas Supreme Court, said in written testimony that Keller’s behavior “clearly meets the constitutional standards for impeachment.”

“I submit that if that type of egregious judicial misconduct, with the most serious possible consequences imaginable, does not require removal from office, nothing does,” Herring wrote.

[…]

If the Legislature gives the go-ahead for impeachment, the process would likely not start until after the session ends June 1. House members would return to Austin to consider articles of impeachment. If adopted, the Senate would then convene for a trial. No action by the governor would be necessary, Burnam said.

Grits, from whom I got that link, also has a report:

[Judge O’Connor declared] that three things justified her impeachment – her actions in the Michael Richard cases, her stated partiality toward the prosecution, and her incompetence as a judge. In the Richard case, she said, the court wasn’t closed “in any real sense” at 5 p.m., she said, since the assigned duty judge was waiting there to hear the appeal. She said she’d never heard of a capital case when a request for a 20-minute delay was denied by an appellate court.

Judge O’Connor particularly emphasized Judge Keller’s partiality toward the prosecution, declaring that alone should be enough to justify her removal. This to me is an even stronger argument for her ouster than the Michael Richard debacle. Imagine a family court judge who declared themselves “pro-husband”!

Judge O’Connor went through all the various reasons judges had been removed from office in Texas, arguing that Judge Keller’s behavior was worse than any of them. She said she doesn’t know anyone who believes Keller should stay in office.

The hearing lasted nearly three hours with most of the testimony favoring impeachment.

Mark Bennett was there for the hearing, though his report is from before it started. The DMN, Statesman, and Daily Texan have more, and you can watch the archived video of the hearing if you’ve got a few hours to kill; Burnam’s stuff starts about three hours in. I’ve put a call into Rep. Burnam’s office and am awaiting a statement from them about the hearing. I’ll post it when I get it.

House committee passes SB1569

Good.

The House Business and Industry Committee wasted no time approving the Senate bill that would open the door for Texas to get $555 million in federal stimulus money to expand unemployment eligibility.

SB 1569 landed in the committee yesterday and the members passed it out Tuesday afternoon in a 6-2 vote. Republican Reps. Wayne Christian of Center and Rob Orr of Burleson were the nays.

Time is of the essence, of course, since there is a good chance Gov. Rick Perry will veto the measure and the chambers could try to override that veto. Perry has not said he will veto the legislation, which passed the Senate last week, but he has repeatedly objected to taking the money.

One significant change made to the bill in committee would undo an amendment proffered by Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, that would make the eligibility changes contingent upon getting the federal money.

The U.S. Department of Labor, however, indicated that Texas would not get the money if that provision remained so the House committee stripped it.

Committee Chairman Joe Deshotel, D-Beaumont, said the bill could come to the House floor next week.

If I’m reading the Constitution correctly, if the bill gets to Governor Perry more than ten days before sine die (Sundays excluded), then there would still be time to override a veto. Easier said than done, of course, but at least there’s a chance. Keep your fingers crossed.

Specter switches

As Greg says, wow.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter’s decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken’s victory in the state Supreme Court.)

“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”

He added: “Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”

My thoughts:

1. I sure hope the Democrats got some kind of assurances about how Specter would vote going forward, because he needed them way more than they needed him. Given that he’s reiterated his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, the opening stanza isn’t too promising.

2. In many ways, this really doesn’t change much. Yes, assuming Sen. Al Franken gets seated sometime before he stands for re-election, this gives the Democrats the magic number of 60 members. The thing is, Senate Democrats have been a bigger obstacle to President Obama’s agenda than any other group. Conservative Dems such as Sen. Ben Nelson have the leverage to foil, water down, or otherwise pimp to their liking just about anything Obama wants to push. Specter’s switch doesn’t change this dynamic at all.

3. Having said that, there is a way in which Specter’s switch could have a profound effect:

Arlen Specter (R-PA) is rumored to be ready to become Arlen Specter (D-PA). There are a million aspects of that worth examining. But here’s one for process nuts. Check out the Senate Judiciary Committee Rules:

IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTE

The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.

Your current lineup of Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Arlen Specter
Orrin Hatch
Chuck Grassley
Jon Kyl
Jeff Sessions
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Tom Coburn

Which of these fellas do you think will be ready to provide the necessary one vote from the minority to bring things to a vote in the committee on tough questions now?

Specter is caucusing with the Democrats, but he’s still a Republican as far as committee assignments go, and will be one until there’s a new organizing resolution. Same for all the other committees he’s on. Democrats were always going to call for a new organizing resolution once Franken gets seated. Now, maybe they’re willing to let that process play out. Which poison do you think the Senate GOPers would prefer to choose – the fox in the henhouse, or Senator Sixty? Decisions, decisions…

4. Speaking of which, how does this affect the KBH will-she-stay-or-will-she-resign equation? Short answer: beats the beck out of me. On the one hand, you’d think Sen. Cornyn would want her to stay that much more. On the other hand, once Franken is in place, as he inevitably will be, what difference does it make? As always, the answer is “Who knows what KBH will do?”

5. Having said that, prepare to have your mind blown even further. I don’t see any way in which this happens, nor do I see rank and file Democrats being that thrilled at the prospect, for better or worse. But crazier things have happened, and there is an objective logic to it.

6. Dealing with party switchers in general causes headaches and almost always comes with a fair bit of bellyaching up front. Which is totally understandable, especially in the case of someone as obviously calculating and driven by self-interest as Specter is. I get where people like Atrios are coming from, I really do, and it’s completely possible that what we’ll get is a nominal Democrat who doesn’t really change his behavior in any meaningful way. Even worse, we may be sacrificing the chance to elect a better Democrat in 2010 and risk losing to a Republican who’s slightly less crazy than Pat Toomey (not a high bar to clear), since the case against Specter pretty much writes itself. He’s going to have to prove himself, and I hope Dems like Joe Sestak keep their powder dry until it’s clear that Specter is walking the walk. Here in Texas, we’ve had some very good results, as State Rep. Kirk England has been a fine member of the Democratic caucus, and State Sen. Wendy Davis (who had some Republican voting history but had never held office as a Republican) is a rising star having by my count an outstanding freshman session. Whether or not the past stays in the past depends entirely on what happens going forward. It’s totally up to Sen. Specter.

7. Finally, whatever else this is about, I love Specter’s rationale for switching. It’s an acknowledgment of reality, something which his now-former colleagues have less and less experience with these days. Once upon a time, party switchers helped the GOP grow bigger and stronger. Now it’s helping them grow smaller and weaker. I couldn’t be happier about that.

Senators versus TCEQ

If there were a competition for the most toothless (least toothful?) state regulatory agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) would surely be a contender for the title, most likely along with the Texas Ethics Commission. It’s gotten bad enough that some Senators are calling out the Governor on this.

Sens. Wendy Davis, Kirk Watson, Rodney Ellis, and Eliot Shapleigh took turns reviewing the litany of TCEQ failures – from potentially illegal meetings between a TCEQ commissioner and Asarco representatives to the denial of public hearings on cement kilns.

Sen. Davis (D-Fort Worth) honed in on the case of Glenn Shankle, the former TCEQ executive director who issued two extremely valuable radioactive waste disposal permits to a company, Waste Control Specialists, that he is now lobbying for.

“Right now industry is having its way with regulators and it needs to stop,” said Davis.

That TCEQ nearly always sides with polluters is not exactly news. The real question is: What are concerned lawmakers going to do about it? The senators promoted their various reform bills but suggested that industry lobbyists had prevented many of them from even getting a hearing. In the absence of significant action from the Lege, the senators are pushing for a thorough house-cleaning directed by the governor, a proposal that is frankly fanciful.

Let’s be honest: Rick Perry has exactly the TCEQ that he wants. Shapleigh calls the problems at TCEQ “systemic and pervasive.” If so, that’s due in large part to Perry’s appointments to the three-member TCEQ commission.

Just remember when you hear Governor Perry blather on about “states’ rights” in front of paltry crowds of true believers that if the state did its job on matters like these that mean ol’ oppressive federal government really would leave us alone. It’s precisely because we have limp noodles like the TCEQ that leads to federal involvement. There’s nothing new or unusual about this – the reason we have federal civil rights laws is because of states like Texas that refused to enforce such protections for their own citizens. Different decade, same story. Kilday Hart has more.

Microbrewers likely to come up short again

Texas Watchdog has the sad news.

Three bills that would allow microbreweries to sell beer where they brew it appear under the influence of special interests as one of the most powerful and well-funded lobbies in the state, the Texas Wholesale Beer Distributors, claims another triumph.

[…]

“It has to do with the theory of warfare,” says Howard Wolf, the treasurer of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst’s political action committee. “There are huge amounts of money at stake here, and this monopoly is so entrenched and so powerful, they are going to fight as long as they can to protect this monopoly or scheme.”

This session three Democrats proposed a slight tweak to the law that would permit the state’s breweries to sell limited amounts of beer. But the Wholesale Beer Distributors, a press shy group that fills the campaign chests of lawmakers from all parties and regions, testified against a compromise measure, sponsored by state Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, and the bill is still not scheduled for a committee vote. Meanwhile, time is running out. (That the Beer Alliance of Texas, a rival lobby, actually helped write Farrar’s compromise bill, should give you a good indication of that group’s own clout.)

I guess Rick Donley of the Beer Alliance of Texas wasn’t kidding when he said “I wish we had one-tenth the influence [the breweries] think we have.” Of course, he was speaking as a distributor, and that’s the team that won. So, you know, maybe not such a compelling argument.

Two other beer bills-one from state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, and state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, also appear to be drying up with no vote scheduled on either of them.

At this point, any bill that hasn’t been voted out of committee is almost certainly dead. For sure, any bill with dedicated opposition from a lobby like the beer distributors is very dead, not just merely dead. Sorry, beer drinkers of Texas. We lose again.

Is the Lege going back on red light cameras?

Last session, after several prior attempts to ban cities from using red light cameras, the Lege passed a bill (SB1119) that granted cities the authority to use them, with some restrictions. Via Matt Stiles, it seems one of the legislators who had made those previous attempts to ban the cameras is still at it.

A bill that would ban local authorities from using red-light cameras like this one at Bellaire and the Southwest Freeway in Houston got a key vote [Thursday] night in the Legislature.

The legislation, authored by state Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, was passed out of the House urban affairs committee on the 6-5 vote.

As we’ve written before, Isett is no fan of red-light cameras. His city actually lost money with them.

The Texas Legislature Online page for HB2639 doesn’t show the committee vote, so I can’t say who did what. I’ve looked at the text of the bill, and it’s not fully clear to me what it does – it substitutes “local authority” for “municipality” as part of its wording, which distinction I don’t really understand. Be that as it may, this may make it to the House floor to a vote, but I think it’s likely to be a calendars casualty in the Senate. I just don’t get the impression that there’s enough sentiment to undo what was done last time. But you never know, so we’ll keep an eye on this.

Fun fact: Three of the four House sponsors of SB1119 are no longer in the House: Jim Murphy, the author of the House companion bill for SB11119, was defeated in November by Rep. Kristi Thibaut; Kevin Bailey was defeated in the Democratic primary by Rep. Armando Walle, who is now on the Urban Affairs committee; and Dianne Delisi retired. I can confidently state that SB1119 had nothing to do with Murphy or Bailey’s defeats, but it’ll be interesting to see how all of their replacements vote on HB2639 if it comes to the floor.

Is the Lege going back on red light cameras?

Last session, after several prior attempts to ban cities from using red light cameras, the Lege passed a bill (SB1119) that granted cities the authority to use them, with some restrictions. Via Matt Stiles, it seems one of the legislators who had made those previous attempts to ban the cameras is still at it.

A bill that would ban local authorities from using red-light cameras like this one at Bellaire and the Southwest Freeway in Houston got a key vote [Thursday] night in the Legislature.

The legislation, authored by state Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, was passed out of the House urban affairs committee on the 6-5 vote.

As we’ve written before, Isett is no fan of red-light cameras. His city actually lost money with them.

The Texas Legislature Online page for HB2639 doesn’t show the committee vote, so I can’t say who did what. I’ve looked at the text of the bill, and it’s not fully clear to me what it does – it substitutes “local authority” for “municipality” as part of its wording, which distinction I don’t really understand. Be that as it may, this may make it to the House floor to a vote, but I think it’s likely to be a calendars casualty in the Senate. I just don’t get the impression that there’s enough sentiment to undo what was done last time. But you never know, so we’ll keep an eye on this.

Fun fact: Three of the four House sponsors of SB1119 are no longer in the House: Jim Murphy, the author of the House companion bill for SB11119, was defeated in November by Rep. Kristi Thibaut; Kevin Bailey was defeated in the Democratic primary by Rep. Armando Walle, who is now on the Urban Affairs committee; and Dianne Delisi retired. I can confidently state that SB1119 had nothing to do with Murphy or Bailey’s defeats, but it’ll be interesting to see how all of their replacements vote on HB2639 if it comes to the floor.

Texas blog roundup for the week of April 27

The Texas Progressive Alliance – at least this member, anyway – would like to say “Go Rockets!” Oh, and here’s this week’s blog roundup.

(more…)

House budget conferees announced

Elise Hu names names.

State Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, House Appropriations Chairman
State Rep. Richard Raymond, D-Webb, House Appropriations Vice-Chair
State Rep. Ruth Jones-McClendon, D-San Antonio
State Rep. John Otto, R-Dayton
State Rep. John Zerwas, R-Houston

Give credit to Burka – he called all five. These five will join Senate conferees Steve Ogden, Royce West, Florence Shapiro, Chuy Hinojosa, and Tommy Williams to hammer out the final budget. I don’t know yet when they’ll start their process, but I assume it’ll be soon. Will the Davis-Walle amendment, which drained the Texas Enterprise Fund in the event of a veto of SB1569, survive? Will the Ogden stem cell rider get the heave-ho? The answers to these and other important questions will be known to us soon.

UPDATE: As has been pointed out to me, Zerwas is from Katy, in Fort Bend County. None of the ten conferees are from Harris County; Williams’ district includes a piece of northeast Harris County, though he himself hails from The Woodlands. I hadn’t realized that when I first wrote this, but it strikes me now as being a little strange that the largest county in the state has basically no representation on the budget conference committee. Hope they don’t forget about us…

House budget conferees announced

Elise Hu names names.

State Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, House Appropriations Chairman
State Rep. Richard Raymond, D-Webb, House Appropriations Vice-Chair
State Rep. Ruth Jones-McClendon, D-San Antonio
State Rep. John Otto, R-Dayton
State Rep. John Zerwas, R-Houston

Give credit to Burka – he called all five. These five will join Senate conferees Steve Ogden, Royce West, Florence Shapiro, Chuy Hinojosa, and Tommy Williams to hammer out the final budget. I don’t know yet when they’ll start their process, but I assume it’ll be soon. Will the Davis-Walle amendment, which drained the Texas Enterprise Fund in the event of a veto of SB1569, survive? Will the Ogden stem cell rider get the heave-ho? The answers to these and other important questions will be known to us soon.

UPDATE: As has been pointed out to me, Zerwas is from Katy, in Fort Bend County. None of the ten conferees are from Harris County; Williams’ district includes a piece of northeast Harris County, though he himself hails from The Woodlands. I hadn’t realized that when I first wrote this, but it strikes me now as being a little strange that the largest county in the state has basically no representation on the budget conference committee. Hope they don’t forget about us…

Help choose the next HISD Superintendent

The HISD Board of Trustees will hold a series of eight public meetings to get feedback about what people want in their next Superintendent.

Heidrick & Struggles, the executive search firm hired by the schol board, will lead the community meetings and plans to use the input in its hunt for superintendent candidates.

Meetings also will be held with various business, faith-based, parent, educational and employee groups.

Trustees have set a goal of hiring a superintendent in July but have said the timeline is flexible.

The meeting schedule is as follows:

  • Today: 6:30 p.m., HISD South Region Office, 4040 W. Fuqua
  • Tuesday: 6:30 p.m., Bellaire High School, 5100 Maple
  • Wednesday: 6:30 p.m., Wheatley High School, 4801 Providence
  • Thursday: 6:30 p.m., Washington High School, 119 E. 39th
  • May 4: 6:30 p.m., Revere Middle School, 10502 Briar Forest
  • May 5: 6:30 p.m., Reagan High School, 413 E. 13th
  • May 7: 6:30 p.m., Deady Middle School, 2500 Broadway
  • May 9: 2 p.m., Ryan Middle School, 2610 Elgin

Please participate if you can.

Help choose the next HISD Superintendent

The HISD Board of Trustees will hold a series of eight public meetings to get feedback about what people want in their next Superintendent.

Heidrick & Struggles, the executive search firm hired by the schol board, will lead the community meetings and plans to use the input in its hunt for superintendent candidates.

Meetings also will be held with various business, faith-based, parent, educational and employee groups.

Trustees have set a goal of hiring a superintendent in July but have said the timeline is flexible.

The meeting schedule is as follows:

  • Today: 6:30 p.m., HISD South Region Office, 4040 W. Fuqua
  • Tuesday: 6:30 p.m., Bellaire High School, 5100 Maple
  • Wednesday: 6:30 p.m., Wheatley High School, 4801 Providence
  • Thursday: 6:30 p.m., Washington High School, 119 E. 39th
  • May 4: 6:30 p.m., Revere Middle School, 10502 Briar Forest
  • May 5: 6:30 p.m., Reagan High School, 413 E. 13th
  • May 7: 6:30 p.m., Deady Middle School, 2500 Broadway
  • May 9: 2 p.m., Ryan Middle School, 2610 Elgin

Please participate if you can.

Statewide race for Earle?

Well, this is interesting news.

Retired for all of four months, former Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is considering running for a new job, possibly as the state’s top lawyer.

“There have been people who have talked to me about statewide runs,” for either governor or attorney general, said Earle, who served as Travis County’s top prosecutor for 31 years before retiring in December.

Eye on Williamson has been on the Earle-for-Governor bandwagon for months now, so this ought to make him happy. I think just the fact that “people” have been talking to Earle about a possible statewide run next year suggests that these people, who one presumes are the type who can actually make a campaign financially viable, think such a race is winnable. That says something about the political climate these days. Such optimism may be misplaced, but give how not too long ago the meme was that Democrats had already punted on the 2010 elections, it’s remarkable in and of itself.

Earle is an appealing candidate in many ways. He’s well known around the state, which is something you can’t say for many Texas Dems. He’d have no trouble firing up the base, thanks to his pursuit of Tom DeLay. Even better, the DeLay brand is sullied enough that any resentment of this case would likely be limited for the most part to folks who wouldn’t vote for any Democrat anyway. The eventual and long-awaited prosecutions of DeLay and his cronies would keep Earle’s name in the news even with him gone from the Travis County DA’s office. If everyone gets acquitted it would be a negative for him, but I think the odds are pretty good of at least some convictions. Earle’s reputation is that of a straight-shooter, which would play very nicely with any kind of reform message. All in all, there’s a lot to like about this.

Now of course, Democrats already have candidates for each of these offices. With all due respect to Tom Schieffer, I’d vote for Ronnie Earle in a heartbeat for the gubernatorial nomination. But if Sen. Leticia Van de Putte runs, I’d likely prefer her, as I think her legislative experience will make her the stronger candidate. Attorney General would be an excellent fit for Earle, and as much as I respect Barbara Radnofsky, I’d be strongly inclined to support Earle for that office. Maybe BAR might consider shifting focus to the Supreme Court if Earle does jump in – that’s where statewide Dems have gotten their highest vote totals in the past couple of elections, and her name ID would be as much of an asset there as anywhere else on the ballot.

Of course, all this is predicated on Earle actually taking the plunge in one of these races. I’ve lost count of the number of “so-and-so is considering a run for something” stories I’ve seen in the past few years; if I had a nickel for each one, my 401(k) would still be worth something. If and when we hear more about his ambitions, or those of anyone else who might be lurking out there, we’ll figure it all out then. Thanks to BOR for the tip.

Statewide race for Earle?

Well, this is interesting news.

Retired for all of four months, former Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is considering running for a new job, possibly as the state’s top lawyer.

“There have been people who have talked to me about statewide runs,” for either governor or attorney general, said Earle, who served as Travis County’s top prosecutor for 31 years before retiring in December.

Eye on Williamson has been on the Earle-for-Governor bandwagon for months now, so this ought to make him happy. I think just the fact that “people” have been talking to Earle about a possible statewide run next year suggests that these people, who one presumes are the type who can actually make a campaign financially viable, think such a race is winnable. That says something about the political climate these days. Such optimism may be misplaced, but give how not too long ago the meme was that Democrats had already punted on the 2010 elections, it’s remarkable in and of itself.

Earle is an appealing candidate in many ways. He’s well known around the state, which is something you can’t say for many Texas Dems. He’d have no trouble firing up the base, thanks to his pursuit of Tom DeLay. Even better, the DeLay brand is sullied enough that any resentment of this case would likely be limited for the most part to folks who wouldn’t vote for any Democrat anyway. The eventual and long-awaited prosecutions of DeLay and his cronies would keep Earle’s name in the news even with him gone from the Travis County DA’s office. If everyone gets acquitted it would be a negative for him, but I think the odds are pretty good of at least some convictions. Earle’s reputation is that of a straight-shooter, which would play very nicely with any kind of reform message. All in all, there’s a lot to like about this.

Now of course, Democrats already have candidates for each of these offices. With all due respect to Tom Schieffer, I’d vote for Ronnie Earle in a heartbeat for the gubernatorial nomination. But if Sen. Leticia Van de Putte runs, I’d likely prefer her, as I think her legislative experience will make her the stronger candidate. Attorney General would be an excellent fit for Earle, and as much as I respect Barbara Radnofsky, I’d be strongly inclined to support Earle for that office. Maybe BAR might consider shifting focus to the Supreme Court if Earle does jump in – that’s where statewide Dems have gotten their highest vote totals in the past couple of elections, and her name ID would be as much of an asset there as anywhere else on the ballot.

Of course, all this is predicated on Earle actually taking the plunge in one of these races. I’ve lost count of the number of “so-and-so is considering a run for something” stories I’ve seen in the past few years; if I had a nickel for each one, my 401(k) would still be worth something. If and when we hear more about his ambitions, or those of anyone else who might be lurking out there, we’ll figure it all out then. Thanks to BOR for the tip.

Endorsement watch: Castro for San Antonio

Julian Castro, who narrowly lost the 2005 Mayoral race in San Antonio to outgoing Mayor Phil Hardberger, was endorsed for the office this year by the San Antonio Express News.

Castro is the best prepared candidate, and he offers the best option for voters in this race.

Since his loss to Hardberger in 2005, Castro has not taken his eye off the goal of succeeding his formal rival.

He has determinedly courted a business community that was skeptical of him four years ago.

And, notably, Castro cites economic growth as the mayor’s first job.

Meanwhile, an effort by some in the business community to recruit a candidate in the Hardberger mold failed.

And as a result of those factors, Castro has earned a significant share of support from a business community that is split between the three leading contenders. He already enjoyed considerable grass-roots strength.

Castro, now 34, has matured in the four years since he faced Hardberger.

And his 2009 campaign has avoided the many missteps that doomed his earlier run.

Not using his twin brother, State Rep. Joaquin Castro, as a stand-in was a good start. More seriously, Castro is a strong favorite to win, and might take it in the first round. Given that he’s just 34 now, that raises the question of where he might go from here.

Castro’s foes criticize him as overly ambitious, although he has not publicly expressed a desire for any political job other than mayor.

It’s hard to imagine that he hasn’t given the matter some thought. Assuming he does win this race, and that a Democrat doesn’t win the Governor’s race next year, Castro would be stepping down from this job in May of 2013, in plenty of time for the next go-round there. Anyone want to hop on board the Castro for Governor 2014 bandwagon? John Cornyn’s Senate seat will be up that year, too, if you want a different option. It’s never too early to speculate, after all. SA Mayor has more.

UPDATE: As Randy reminds me in the comments, SA’s extreme term limits law was loosened last years, so Castro – or whoever wins, of course – could serve till 2017. So my speculation is even more ridiculously premature. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Endorsement watch: Castro for San Antonio

Julian Castro, who narrowly lost the 2005 Mayoral race in San Antonio to outgoing Mayor Phil Hardberger, was endorsed for the office this year by the San Antonio Express News.

Castro is the best prepared candidate, and he offers the best option for voters in this race.

Since his loss to Hardberger in 2005, Castro has not taken his eye off the goal of succeeding his formal rival.

He has determinedly courted a business community that was skeptical of him four years ago.

And, notably, Castro cites economic growth as the mayor’s first job.

Meanwhile, an effort by some in the business community to recruit a candidate in the Hardberger mold failed.

And as a result of those factors, Castro has earned a significant share of support from a business community that is split between the three leading contenders. He already enjoyed considerable grass-roots strength.

Castro, now 34, has matured in the four years since he faced Hardberger.

And his 2009 campaign has avoided the many missteps that doomed his earlier run.

Not using his twin brother, State Rep. Joaquin Castro, as a stand-in was a good start. More seriously, Castro is a strong favorite to win, and might take it in the first round. Given that he’s just 34 now, that raises the question of where he might go from here.

Castro’s foes criticize him as overly ambitious, although he has not publicly expressed a desire for any political job other than mayor.

It’s hard to imagine that he hasn’t given the matter some thought. Assuming he does win this race, and that a Democrat doesn’t win the Governor’s race next year, Castro would be stepping down from this job in May of 2013, in plenty of time for the next go-round there. Anyone want to hop on board the Castro for Governor 2014 bandwagon? John Cornyn’s Senate seat will be up that year, too, if you want a different option. It’s never too early to speculate, after all. SA Mayor has more.

UPDATE: As Randy reminds me in the comments, SA’s extreme term limits law was loosened last years, so Castro – or whoever wins, of course – could serve till 2017. So my speculation is even more ridiculously premature. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Two legislator stories

The Chron has a nice profile of State Rep. Kristi Thibaut, who had a very busy year last year.

Thibaut first ran for the Legislature in 2006. She had been a state Senate messenger and a government major while in college and a legislative aide for two years. Taught by her father to hunt geese on the coast, she had headed the youth hunting group. She also worked for the Texas Wildlife Foundation and as a campaign fundraiser.

Thibaut got at least one Republican vote: her husband’s. But she lost the race to Republican Jim Murphy in District 133, which includes upper-middle-class homes and modest apartment complexes near Westheimer and the Sam Houston Tollway.

Democrats reloaded on hope for 2008. Thibaut started running again in late 2007. And the candidate, who had suffered a miscarriage months earlier, talked with her husband about starting the adoption process after November’s election.

Then Thibaut got pregnant.

“I was as hysterical as anybody in that position would be,” she recalled. She’d been fearful she would disappoint supporters and contributors who might think she no longer was game for political combat.

But she was. Her husband encouraged her to stay on the campaign trail, as did groups such as Annie’s List, which backs Democratic women seeking Texas offices.

Her son was born June 11, and soon after, Thibaut sought campaign donations with a letter that included a baby photo. On Election Day, she greeted voters at polling places with her son, who wore a T-shirt saying “Vote for my mommy.”

Child exploitation for political gain? “We were shameless,” Thibaut said.

Turnout doubled from 2006. She beat Murphy by fewer than 500 votes.

I remember talking to Thibaut shortly after the news of her pregnancy became public. She was confident at the time that she could run an effective campaign, and more importantly raise the funds she’d need to run that campaign, during and after her pregnancy. The results speak for themselves. Thibaut got a sizable boost from the Democratic wave of 2008, and will be one of the more endangered incumbents in 2010 because of that; Murphy is running again, for the rubber match. She’s a hard worker, she’s already got some good legislative results, and she’s just a super person, so if anyone can hold that seat, it’s her.

Meanwhile, the Statesman has an interesting piece on longtime conservative stalwart Rep. Warren Chisum, who lost power in the Speaker transition but has since morphed into a key player on environmental legislation.

With ever more likely federal rules limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, which have been associated with global warming, Chisum has teamed up with Democrats and some Republicans to make business-friendly proposals that would give subsidies to companies that capture greenhouse gas emissions.

Chisum, in short, has sought out engagement with the federal government over carbon dioxide rules even as some leading Republicans have taken a more confrontational posture.

Gov. Rick Perry, for one, has warned against an activist Environmental Protection Agency and said the greenhouse gas rules could derail the economy in a state that is the nation’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide.

But Chisum has avoided the politically divisive rhetoric of global warming, which most Texas Republican leaders are unwilling to connect to emissions from the state’s power plants and manufacturing facilities.

Instead, he has focused on modest goals aimed at tamping down the state’s carbon emissions by dishing out tax breaks and other incentives to industries. The proposals could save utilities and other industries money, depending on how expensive carbon emissions become under federal limits, and could earn Texas political credit as those limits are shaped.

“There’s not much sympathy for Texas” in Washington, said Chisum, who said the state should try to influence the shape of federal law. “We should try to get a legitimate seat in any rule-making that the federal government is involved in sooner rather than later.”

Chisum gets positive reviews from environmental advocates in the piece, though they note that there’s a whole lot of legislation that hasn’t passed yet. He’s really a good fit for the role he’s taken here, because everyone likes and respects him, and he’s clearly taken a pragmatic, let’s-get-things-done perspective. I wish him well in this pursuit.

Two legislator stories

The Chron has a nice profile of State Rep. Kristi Thibaut, who had a very busy year last year.

Thibaut first ran for the Legislature in 2006. She had been a state Senate messenger and a government major while in college and a legislative aide for two years. Taught by her father to hunt geese on the coast, she had headed the youth hunting group. She also worked for the Texas Wildlife Foundation and as a campaign fundraiser.

Thibaut got at least one Republican vote: her husband’s. But she lost the race to Republican Jim Murphy in District 133, which includes upper-middle-class homes and modest apartment complexes near Westheimer and the Sam Houston Tollway.

Democrats reloaded on hope for 2008. Thibaut started running again in late 2007. And the candidate, who had suffered a miscarriage months earlier, talked with her husband about starting the adoption process after November’s election.

Then Thibaut got pregnant.

“I was as hysterical as anybody in that position would be,” she recalled. She’d been fearful she would disappoint supporters and contributors who might think she no longer was game for political combat.

But she was. Her husband encouraged her to stay on the campaign trail, as did groups such as Annie’s List, which backs Democratic women seeking Texas offices.

Her son was born June 11, and soon after, Thibaut sought campaign donations with a letter that included a baby photo. On Election Day, she greeted voters at polling places with her son, who wore a T-shirt saying “Vote for my mommy.”

Child exploitation for political gain? “We were shameless,” Thibaut said.

Turnout doubled from 2006. She beat Murphy by fewer than 500 votes.

I remember talking to Thibaut shortly after the news of her pregnancy became public. She was confident at the time that she could run an effective campaign, and more importantly raise the funds she’d need to run that campaign, during and after her pregnancy. The results speak for themselves. Thibaut got a sizable boost from the Democratic wave of 2008, and will be one of the more endangered incumbents in 2010 because of that; Murphy is running again, for the rubber match. She’s a hard worker, she’s already got some good legislative results, and she’s just a super person, so if anyone can hold that seat, it’s her.

Meanwhile, the Statesman has an interesting piece on longtime conservative stalwart Rep. Warren Chisum, who lost power in the Speaker transition but has since morphed into a key player on environmental legislation.

With ever more likely federal rules limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, which have been associated with global warming, Chisum has teamed up with Democrats and some Republicans to make business-friendly proposals that would give subsidies to companies that capture greenhouse gas emissions.

Chisum, in short, has sought out engagement with the federal government over carbon dioxide rules even as some leading Republicans have taken a more confrontational posture.

Gov. Rick Perry, for one, has warned against an activist Environmental Protection Agency and said the greenhouse gas rules could derail the economy in a state that is the nation’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide.

But Chisum has avoided the politically divisive rhetoric of global warming, which most Texas Republican leaders are unwilling to connect to emissions from the state’s power plants and manufacturing facilities.

Instead, he has focused on modest goals aimed at tamping down the state’s carbon emissions by dishing out tax breaks and other incentives to industries. The proposals could save utilities and other industries money, depending on how expensive carbon emissions become under federal limits, and could earn Texas political credit as those limits are shaped.

“There’s not much sympathy for Texas” in Washington, said Chisum, who said the state should try to influence the shape of federal law. “We should try to get a legitimate seat in any rule-making that the federal government is involved in sooner rather than later.”

Chisum gets positive reviews from environmental advocates in the piece, though they note that there’s a whole lot of legislation that hasn’t passed yet. He’s really a good fit for the role he’s taken here, because everyone likes and respects him, and he’s clearly taken a pragmatic, let’s-get-things-done perspective. I wish him well in this pursuit.

Sanctions sought for deadline-missing attorney

This is a necessary step, but it is not a sufficient one.

Texas’ highest criminal court has asked the State Bar of Texas to investigate a San Antonio attorney who missed critical deadlines in four recent death row appeals — actions that jeopardized inmates’ chances of obtaining further legal review before execution.

The Chronicle reported on Monday that San Antonio attorney Suzanne Kramer was among a handful of lawyers statewide who repeatedly missed death row deadlines but continued to get capital murder assignments.

On Wednesday, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeal found Kramer in contempt of court for failing again to properly file inmate Juan Castillo’s appeal — originally due in December 2006 . Kramer was fined $250, removed from Castillo’s case and referred to the chief disciplinary counsel of the State Bar of Texas, the opinion shows.

The court removed her from three out of four late cases in 2008, but at the time continued to allow her to represent Castillo.

We’ve heard about Ms. Kramer before. She has been paid $86,577 in fees by Bexar County since 2007, according to that Chron story, though she was not paid for the cases where she missed deadlines. That she needs to be held accountable for her unprofessional behavior is clear, but what’s equally clear is that courts need to stop assigning attorneys like her to these cases in the first place. There should also be a process to take already-assigned cases away from them once they’ve demonstrated they can’t handle them. Until we fix that, we’re not fully addressing the problem.