April, 2009:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.