Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

December, 2015:

Precinct analysis: Controller runoff

One last election to review:


Dist     Brown  Frazer
======================
A        5,232   7,918
B       13,161   2,616
C       15,244  15,726
D       16,390   4,197
E        6,118  16,073
F        3,890   3,527
G        8,775  21,762
H        6,558   3,117
I        5,253   2,731
J        2,794   2,763
K       10,632   5,434

A       39.79%  60.21%
B       83.42%  16.58%
C       49.22%  50.78%
D       79.61%  20.39%
E       27.57%  72.43%
F       52.45%  47.55%
G       28.74%  71.26%
H       67.78%  32.22%
I       65.79%  34.21%
J       50.28%  49.72%
K       66.18%  33.82%
Chris Brown

Chris Brown

Chris Brown was the only runoff candidate who did not finish first in November to win in the runoffs. Brown ran better than Mayor-elect Sylvester Turner in every district except the three predominantly African-American ones, and he still had very strong showings in those districts. He won districts F and J, both of which Turner did not win, and came within 500 votes of winning District C. Some of that was due to a successful strategy of making this a D-versus-R race – Brown had multiple email blasts going out in the days after the November race highlighting endorsements from a phalanx of Democratic elected officials, including many African-American officials, which no doubt helped him in B, D, and J – and some of it was his continued TV advertising, which likely helped keep the undervote rate to a modest 14.20%, the lowest among citywide races. I can’t say for sure if Brown did a better job of holding on to Turner supporters than Frazer did of holding on to King supporters or if he claimed some crossover voters. It’s not clear because despite Brown’s better performance in the districts I cited, he still had a lower absolute vote total in all of them, so I can’t say for sure that there had to be some King/Brown voters. I’m sure there were some, I just can’t put any numbers to it. Whatever the case, it worked. Brown won, by a 10,000 vote margin.

As for Frazer, this is two close losses for him. The “thanks to my supporters” email he sent out after the runoff said he intends “to stay very involved in the financial issues of Houston as a private citizen, not as a candidate”, so I suspect this was his last campaign. That said, four years is a long time, and people have been known to reconsider. Maybe the Chronicle will want someone to take over their “pension reform columnist” gig. I didn’t agree with Frazer on a number of things, but I respected the way he ran for the office. You knew what he believed in and what he would do about it. We can always use more of that.

Metro and HCTRA exploring other payment options

Look for them soon.

HoustonMetro

Many transit riders are clamoring for smartphone payment for Metro buses and trains, which the agency originally announced would be ready by the end of 2015. Those plans have been delayed because of contract negotiations, but about 100 riders will be chosen for a test of a smartphone-based payment system in January, according to Denise Wendler, Metro’s chief information officer.

Metro approved a $244,090 contract in June with GlobeSherpa, based in Portland, Ore. The company is developing a smartphone app enabling riders to store single-ride tickets or day passes for use as needed. Riders will show the bus operator or fare inspector their valid ticket, which is designed so it cannot be copied or forged.

Current and potential riders are eager for smartphone options, Metro board members said.

[…]

For the initial March unveiling, Wendler said the smartphone payment system will have the ability to accept and verify Metro’s common $1.25 fare and a $3 day pass option. Smartphone options will come later for those who receive discounts, such as seniors and students, and for park-and-ride fares, she said.

Demand also is expected to surge among commuters, Metro board member Christof Spieler said.

“I would roll out park and ride as fast as possible,” he said.

Metro, after years of encouraging Q card use, has eased up on making the cards the preferred payment source. Though the Q card system is aging and likely to be replaced in a few years, it is still the dominant method of paying for bus and train trips in the area.

I noted the pilot of this a few days ago. I have a Q card, which is paid for by my employer – I suspect there are a lot of people like me – so I’m not exactly itching to try something new. I’m sure that when the time comes, companies that subsidize transit for their employees will find a way to use the new system. For everyone else, I see no reason not to offer more options. Among other things, having a smartphone app for paying would make Metro more accessible to visitors and locals who have a short term need for transit, due to a temporary work assignment or a car that’s in the shop or whatever else. I hope this works out.

Toll agency officials are changing drivers’ payment choices as well. The agency wants to eliminate coin-operated machines and staffed toll booths along many roads, and this month it launched its first EZ TAG option that does not require a credit card.

The new reloadable toll tags, though a partnership with BancPass, are available at the Sam Houston Tollway Ship Channel Bridge toll plaza. They’ll be sold in various retail outlets after the new year, toll road authority spokeswoman Mary Benton said.

Initial purchase of the reloadable EZ TAG costs $40. The “reload kit” includes a transponder for the person’s vehicle, a card to add balance to the toll account and $15 in tolls. As the toll balance diminishes, drivers can add value to the card online or a certain locations around Houston – for now, the Ship Channel Toll Plaza. Each time the card is reloaded, BancPass, the administrator of the accounts, assesses a $2 fee.

Benton said the reloadable card is aimed at attracting people who do not want to give the toll authority credit card information, many of whom use the toll lanes infrequently.

We have EZ tags, and though we don’t use them often (mostly for trips to and from the airport), I don’t foresee that changing. If you’re going to phase out coin machines and staffed toll booths, then you’ve got to have an option for the folks who use them now. It seems a bit complicated, but that’s the tradeoff for using cash.

How ready is Texas law enforcement for open carry?

Hard to say. But we’ll begin to find out soon enough.

Texas law enforcement has also been pretty vocal about their concerns with open carry. They are, after all, the group who’ll have to deal with most of the potential fallout of the new law in the upcoming months. While a majority of police chiefs have expressed a general opposition to the law (75 percent, according to a survey in February) , they were most vocal in May when a provision was added that would prevent police officers from stopping people solely because they were openly carrying a gun. By then, the passing of open carry seemed inevitable, so even Democrats who were originally opposed to the law supported the provision in hopes that it would help prevent the targeting of people of color openly carrying handguns.

“What’s going to happen is more interaction between police and black and brown and poor people because of lawful activity,” Rep. Harold Dutton told KXAN.

The provision made some sense, especially considering issues of racial profiling among Texas state troopers, but it was flawed. In May, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said at a news conference that the provision would “handcuff” police officers and prevent them from doing their jobs. He was accompanied by members of the Texas Police Chiefs Association, the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas, the Sheriff’s Association of Texas, and police unions from Houston and Dallas.

[…]

Experts predict that open carry will most likely take place in small numbers in rural areas, but unlike Oklahoma, six of the most populous cities in the country are in Texas: Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, and El Paso. And that’s not taking into account the political climate around gun control in Texas this year. There have been number of demonstrators openly carrying rifles in large cities, the most recent being a group of armed protestors in front of a mosque in Irving and demonstrators who marched with rifles near UT-Austin and later held a mock mass shooting to protest “gun-free zones.” It’s still unclear why they felt the need to protest what would soon be law.

But one of the biggest concerns of law enforcement is establishing the fine line between respecting the rights of someone legally carrying a handgun and protecting the general public. “What happens when an officer sees someone openly carrying a handgun in a holster, in accordance with the law, what can an officer legally do?” Shannon Edmonds, director of governmental relations for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, told the Houston Chronicle. “We keep getting more questions than answers.”

The fear is that open carry will make it harder for police officers to tell the difference between a law-abiding citizen legally carrying a gun and someone with criminal intentions carrying a gun. In the Houston Chronicle, comments like these from Ray Hunt, president of the Houston Police Officers Union, don’t really help to clarify things.

Houston police, he said, will not “be doing random stops of people simply to see if they have a CHL,” but they also will not “sit back for 30 minutes” if they have a reasonable suspicion to stop someone.

So, what will they do?

Click over and see. I think open carry is bad policy, but I also think it will have a relatively minimal effect. You have to have a concealed carry license in order to be able to carry openly, and it was already legal before now for any yahoo with a cheap Soldier of Fortune fantasy to carry any manner of rifle around in public, as we have seen over and over again. It’s the interaction between law enforcement and those who will be openly carrying that is hard to predict. If I had a CHL, I’d probably continue to carry my weapon in a concealed fashion, because who needs the hassle? But then I’m not the type of person who likes to invite trouble to make a point. The other questions involve where people can carry, and how many lawsuits are going to be filed because someone disagreed with someone else’s interpretation of that, and also with how businesses will cater to those who want to carry and those who want to not be around people who carry. I won’t be surprised if that first issue, for this and for campus carry, is revisited in 2017.

Texas blog roundup for the week of December 28

The Texas Progressive Alliance is taking a cup of kindness yet as it brings you this last roundup of 2015.

(more…)

Precinct analysis: At Large #5 runoff

Our last Council runoff review:


Dist  Christie   Moses
======================
A        8,729   3,657
B        3,273  11,539
C       17,743   8,757
D        5,285  13,847
E       16,652   4,324
F        4,108   2,747
G       23,150   4,954
H        4,230   4,405
I        3,716   3,611
J        3,149   1,985
K        6,152   8,582

A       70.47%  29.53%
B       22.10%  77.90%
C       66.95%  33.05%
D       27.62%  72.38%
E       79.39%  20.61%
F       59.93%  40.07%
G       82.37%  17.63%
H       48.99%  51.01%
I       50.72%  49.28%
J       61.34%  38.66%
K       41.75%  58.25%
Jack Christie

Jack Christie

CM Jack Christie is a genuinely nice person, the kind of moderate Republican one fears is going extinct in Texas. He’s definitely been fortunate in the opposition he’s faced. He was fortunate to get then-CM Jolanda Jones into a runoff in 2011 – he trailed her in the November vote, and probably would have lost at that time if it had been just him and her in that race – then won in a low-turnout runoff, which unlike the runoff he lost to her in 2009 did not have a Mayoral race on the same ballot. He faced nominal opposition in 2013 from a couple of late entrants, and was put into a runoff again this year against a candidate who was not well known and who did not generate a lot of Democratic excitement. He’s one of six third term Council members who got two bonus years from the term limits change (five second-year members get four bonus years), and as a senior member of Council ought to have plenty of opportunities to help new Mayor Turner make his mark on the city.

Despite having interviewed her for the runoff, I’m still not sure what to make of Sharon Moses. I thought she came across reasonably well in the interview, though like many first-time candidates she didn’t have a deep knowledge of most issues. A lot of Democratic groups were hesitant with both her and Georgia Provost, and while Provost generally won their endorsements, Moses lagged behind, which is one reason why I expected Provost to do better. She was involved in a dustup over HERO and LGBT equality at a meeting of the Meyerland Democrats’ meeting prior to the runoff. Some of you may have seen a report on that elsewhere; Moses disputed that written account, but a couple of people later corroborated it to me in person. I don’t know how much of that was genuine disagreement and how much was a first-time candidate who maybe didn’t express her views as clearly as she could have, but the electoral effect was clear. In the end, the beneficiary was Jack Christie, and perhaps the candidates who will run for his to-be-open seat in 2019, the only open citywide office on the ballot that year barring anything unexpected.

Our bail policies are unjust, costly, and stupid

Any questions about how I really feel?

go_to_jail

“The numbers clearly tell the story: More than three-fourths of the people in Harris County Jail haven’t been convicted of crime, and the majority of them are sitting in jail simply because they can’t afford to get out – not because they’re a threat to public safety,” said state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston. “This means the indigent are more likely to be kept in jail pretrial, lose their jobs, affect their family lives, and receive harsher sentences solely because of their income status.”

Harris County locks up more people pretrial than most other large counties utilizing a standardized schedule that sets bond amounts for specific crimes. Magistrates makes bond decisions based almost entirely on charges filed and prior convictions in hearings via video linkup at which few questions are asked and defendants have no attorneys – a process the county’s public defender has described as potentially illegal in an upcoming law journal article.

The magistrate’s bond decisions are almost never altered by the county’s elected district court judges, who reduced bonds in less than 1 percent of cases, court bond data from 2014-15 shows.

Judges can, if they choose, grant personal bonds to defendants in which bail fees are waived in exchange for a promise to appear. But in 2014, they granted personal bonds to about 1 percent of felony offenders and only 9 percent of misdemeanor offenders, county statistics show.

Those rates are below those in other urban Texas counties, including Bexar and Travis, according to a related 2015 report. Several district court judges have told magistrates never to issue personal bonds for anyone assigned to their courts, while others specify such bonds be granted only to students, a former judge and other county officials told the Chronicle.

Once jailed, no mechanism exists to automatically alert elected judges even when an inmate falls severely ill or already has served more time pretrial than the punishment for the alleged crime, Harris County judges said.

In August 2009, after the U.S. Department of Justice found civil rights abuses at the Harris County Jail, a consulting firm hired by the county urged judges to increase the use of personal bonds to reduce crowding in the jail complex, then bursting with more than 11,000 inmates. More than six years later, jail population has decreased, but the proportion of inmates awaiting trial has grown, from 54 percent in August 2009 to 76 percent in November 2015.

Some judges defended their tough bond schedule, explaining that many defendants are repeat offenders or require high bail to guarantee court appearances and protect the public. But in a $2 million proposal the county is preparing to submit to the Chicago-based MacArthur Foundation, judges and attorneys alike have called for reforms. In interviews, many agreed the pretrial system is broken and the jail is regularly clogged with too many mentally ill and low-risk offenders arrested for crimes like smoking pot and trespassing.

Ultimately, the system most punishes the poorest and sickest defendants, defense attorneys and some legislators say.

Fifty-five inmates died in the jail while awaiting adjudication since 2009. Eight were too ill to appear at initial bail hearings.

Emphasis mine. This is outrageous and infuriating. People who have not been convicted of a crime are in jail without any consideration of their risk to the community, their health, or the effect their incarceration may have on their families. Some of them wind up spending more time in jail waiting for their case to be resolved than they ever would have if they had been convicted of the crime for which they were arrested. Many of them wind up pleading guilty to a crime they may never have been convicted of just to get out of jail. Does any of this sound like justice? Does any of it sound like something you would tolerate if it happened to you or someone you knew? Does any of it sound like a viable and cost-effective way to promote public safety? This isn’t something we have to do. It’s not something we are being forced to do by state or federal mandate. It’s something we are choosing to do, and by “we” I mean the judges who set these dumb bail amounts and the people who vote for them. We chose this, and we can choose differently. It’s up to us.

The forthcoming fight over the Alabama-Coushatta casino in Texas

I missed this report from November.

After more than 13 years, the feds say the Alabama-Coushatta’s casino in Livingston can finally reopen. And here’s the kicker: according to the federal government’s reasoning, the tribe’s casino should never have been forced to close in the first place.

[…]

Recently, the tribe asked the Department of Interior and National Indian Gaming Association to clarify their legal standing, gambling-wise. In October, the Interior Department and the National Indian Gaming Commission decided that the Alabama-Coushatta (along with the Tigua, a tribe located on a reservation near El Paso) do actually have the right to offer bingo and electronic bingo on the reservation, meaning the Alabama-Coushatta will soon be open for business.

The Interior Department warned both the Alabama-Coushatta and the Tigua to be careful and line everything up with the National Indian Gaming Commission, considering the state isn’t likely to be happy with this development. Bullock says they’re intent on doing everything by the book. “The state hasn’t responded to us yet. I can’t say what their position is. I can’t anticipate what they’ll do, and we’re not going to. We’re going to do what the federal government allows us to do and that’s all.”

At the end of the day, the casino re-opening will be a game-changer for the people living on the reservation. There’s no firm opening date, Bullock says. The casino has been standing empty and acting as a sort of community center for more than a decade, but the tribe has already voted unanimously to pull money out of their permanent funds to get the casino ready.

The story delves into the background of this longstanding battle, the tl;dr version of which is that the casino that was opened in 2001 was shut down in 2002 thanks to the efforts of then-AG John Cornyn, with some court skirmishes and behind-the-scenes maneuvering since then. I’ve got a couple of posts on the more recent activity here and here; if you have a long memory and a morbid curiosity, see also here for one of the side attractions of the original fight, which went beyond Texas and demonstrated was an unscrupulous dirtbag Ralph Reed is.

So does this mean there’s casino gambling coming to Texas next year? I wouldn’t count on it just yet, because the state of Texas isn’t going to just let it happen. This story from last week explains (the lawsuit in question stems from the original fight).

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone issued an order requiring the Tiguas and other parties to the lawsuit to file their briefs on what the federal agency decision means.

On December 9 Paxton filed a brief on the Tiguas case — the tribe has been in a legal fight over the right to gamble for more than 20 years now — on the issue. Predictably he came down against it, contending that “no federal agency interpretation can contradict Congressional intent.”

The 26-page brief referenced 25 court cases and dug into eight “issues” that concerned the state, with most of the issues tugging at whether or not the National Indian Gaming Commission and the Department of the Interior had the right to even issue their opinion on gaming.

Paxton was pretty clear about what he thought:

“If Congress has explicitly left a gap for an agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute … Here there is no gap. The only issues presented are legal issues for this court. Congress delegated no power or authority to either federal agency to interpret laws or invalidate portions of federal law.”

Outside of the brief Paxton has officially stayed silent on the question of the Alabama-Coushatta. “At this point, we will not be providing any comment,” Spokeswoman Teresa Farfan replied via email in response to our questions.

However, the Alabama-Coushatta come up twice in Paxton’s brief. The first mention comes right at the start:

“Should Texas be required to join the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe to this litigation … without any evidence that the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe is currently violating the Restoration Act?”

Then, at the end of the brief he answers his own question:

“Since this litigation was filed to enjoin and hold accountable the Pueblo defendants for their continued violation of federal law embodied in the Restoration Act, there is no need to … add third-party tribes which, unlike the Pueblo defendants here, are not currently violating federal law.”

Translation: The Alabama-Coushatta aren’t currently violating the federal law so they won’t be in trouble with the state until they actually do something to violate the federal law, like, you know, maybe reopening their casino in 2016.

So yeah. I’d continue to make plans to visit Louisiana or Vegas to get my gamble on for the near future. The Alabama-Coushatta may eventually prevail, but if so it won’t be in 2016.

2016 Election page is up

vote-button

Here it is. A few notes:

– This is for races that will appear on the Harris County ballot only. Our ballot is big enough, with enough contested primary races, that I didn’t have the time or the energy to do anything more ambitious. It’s great that there is such interest in running for office as a Democrat in Harris County, but it does limit my capabilities a bit.

– Along those lines, I have not included Constable and JP races on this page. I mean, look at the HCDP primary candidates page. There are four contested JP races involving 19 candidates, and 5 contested Constable races with 23 more candidates. I’ve already got 75 candidates in 29 races on the page. I can’t keep up with more than that.

– As always, this is a work in progress. I linked to campaign or Facebook pages where I could – campaign Facebook pages, not personal ones – but only if I could find one. If you know of an error or omission, or if you know of a page that has come online since I first published, please drop me a note to kuff – at – offthekuff – dot – com. Thanks.

– I will start running primary interviews and judicial Q&As on Monday. Again, I won’t be able to cover everything, but I’ll do what I can. Early voting starts in seven weeks (!) so to say the least this is a sprint.

– Note that some candidates have run for things before, and for some of them there may already be an interview or Q&A in my archives from a previous election. I’ve been doing interviews and Q&As for primaries since 2008, so go search the archives and see what you can find.

– For judges in Criminal District Court races, here’s a brief overview provided by Murray Newman, defense attorney and former Assistant DA. He tends to lean Republican, but he also knows a lot of these people, so go see what he has to say.

I think that about covers it. I’ll add finance report information as soon as I can, and will begin tracking endorsements when they come out. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

One million plus Texas Obamacare enrollments

It keeps going up.

It's constitutional - deal with it

It’s constitutional – deal with it

Just over one million Texans had signed up on the federal health insurance exchange as of last Saturday, signaling a steady drumbeat of interest and giving local advocates a chance for some celebration.

“I will take it,” Ken Janda, president and CEO of Community Health Choice, a Houston-based non-profit health plan offering insurance plans through the Affordable Care Act’s federal marketplace, said Tuesday when he heard the numbers.

The 1,040,246 Texas enrollees included those signing up for the first time and people renewing existing coverage, according to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services statistics released Tuesday.

Nationally, 8.2 million had signed up as of last week, topping last year’s numbers for the same time period by about 2 million, she said, the agency announced.

“We have never seen this level of activity,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said during a conference call with reporters and community groups across the country. Calling the demand “unprecedented,” she added: “This is what we wanted to see.”

For comparison, the numbers were 734K in 2014, and 850K for 2015. They won’t change the mind of anyone whose mind needs to be changed, but this law has made a big difference in a lot of people’s lives. People can believe whatever BS they want to believe, but a million people who can see a doctor and who can not have to worry about being bankrupted by an illness know better. Kevin Drum, who looks at the national numbers, has more.

City-county relations should continue to be good

Glad to hear it.

Sylvester Turner

Sylvester Turner

Prospects for increased city-county cooperation are looking up, Houston Mayor-elect Sylvester Turner and Harris County Judge Ed Emmett say, forecasting further thawing of the historically contentious relationship between the jurisdictions.

Turner spoke with Emmett and Harris County’s four commissioners just days after his narrow mayoral victory over Bill King, seeking to discuss a series of common objectives, which included potential partnerships on forensic sciences, mental health, traffic management and reviving the beleaguered Astrodome.

“It’s in both of our respective interests, and, quite frankly, the whole region, for the city of Houston to be working in collaboration with the county and our regional partners,” Turner said in a recent interview with the Chronicle, echoing a common debate talking point.

He and King repeatedly called for a joint crime lab throughout the campaign, agreeing that Houston should scrap its independent operation and join forces with the county.

Emmett, a Republican and former state lawmaker, said he has high expectations for his relationship with Turner, a 26-year Democratic state representative.

“When you’re talking about transportation or flood control or crime labs or traffic management, there’s nothing partisan about those things. He understands that, and I understand that,” Emmett said, pointing to their common legislative background. “So, I think we’ll engage on a regular basis.”

[…]

Under outgoing Mayor Annise Parker, the city and county worked more closely than they had in decades, jointly supporting a 2012 Metro referendum on mobility funding, teaming up to fund a new pauper’s cemetery and creating a joint radio shop to program, maintain and repair radios for first responders. October’s ground-breaking on a joint city-county inmate processing center is seen as a cooperative milestone.

I talked about the city’s improved relationship with the county in my interview with Mayor Parker. It was a remarkable change, and something for which she and Commissioners Court deserve a lot of credit. It helps that when the city and county get together on things, it really is a win-win: Stuff gets done, and money gets saved, which means there’s something for everyone. It doesn’t always work out that nicely, and there will be times when the city and the county have differing goals, but there should be more opportunities for this over the next few years. It’s encouraging to see Mayor-elect Turner and Commissioners Court singing from the same hymnal.

Interview with Mayor Annise Parker

Mayor Annise Parker

Mayor Annise Parker

We are in the last few days of the administration of Mayor Annise Parker. Having served three terms each as Council member and Controller, she is finishing up eighteen years as an elected official in the city of Houston. I wanted to take the opportunity to talk to her one last time before she heads out into the private sector about her tenure as Mayor. What is she most proud of, what does she regret, what would she have done differently, what would her agenda be if she were still in office? There was much to talk about.

I hadn’t done one of these “exit interviews” before. I might have with then-Mayor Bill White, but by this time in his last term he was already a candidate for Governor and busy with a contested primary (for which I interviewed him) so there wasn’t much point. I’ll note here that Mayor Parker’s eighteen years in office is easily a record for the term limits era. With the change to two four-year terms, someone could beat her record by equaling her achievement of being elected to Council, Controller, and Mayor, and a Council member currently in his second term (e.g., Michael Kubosh or David Robinson) who could wind up with ten years on Council could match her by being elected either Controller or Mayor afterwards. I suspect it will be awhile before we see anything like that again, however.

The Chron did an exit interview chat with Mayor Parker, and there is some overlap with the questions she fielded there. She was able to give longer and more detailed answers in this interview, however:

Next week I will begin publishing interviews and judicial Q&As for contested Democratic primaries. You can see the races that are in scope on my 2016 Election page.

The incumbents’ advantage

Is it about to become that much harder to vote incumbent city officials out of office?

calvin-on-term-limits-for-dads

The already difficult task of ousting incumbent Houston officeholders likely has become even tougher.

City elected officials now have an extended runway to accumulate cash before returning to the campaign trail, thanks to a voter-approved extension of term limits and the elimination of Houston’s fundraising blackout during non-election seasons.

Experts agreed the changes could be a boon to incumbents, though were split over the magnitude of that boost.

“It’s huge, hugely significant,” Texas Southern University political scientist Jay Aiyer said. “We’re, basically, giving people an eight-year term.”

Local government finance lawyer Neil Thomas, however, characterized the shift as marginal.

“It certainly gives candidates and officeholders a longer period of time to raise funds, but incumbents always have an advantage,” Thomas said.

[…]

Under the new regulations, candidates will be allowed to solicit donations year-round, though the city’s $5,000 individual contribution limit and $10,000 cap for political action committees per election cycle remain. Thomas said that cap mitigates the impact of abolishing the blackout.

“I would think that any additional amounts that they might raise would really affect any advantage an incumbent might have only marginally, because the base limits still remain in effect,” Thomas said. “Yes, there may be some events that wouldn’t otherwise occur, but I don’t see any big change.”

Thomas and local fundraiser Pat Strong also noted that elected officials regularly draw down campaign funds for officeholder expenses, so not all of the money raised over four years necessarily will accumulate in the form of a campaign war chest.

“Now that they can raise money year-round, they can actually enhance their outreach by reaching into their campaign funds rather than relying on taxpayer funds to cover their officeholder expenses,” said Strong, who raised money for mayor-elect Sylvester Turner.

I think the individual and PAC contribution limit is a key mitigating factor here. Incumbents can hit up all the usual suspects for max contributions, but they can only do it once. I can tell you from my experience looking through finance reports that many PACs don’t come close to maxing out on most candidates. They may not care to, or they may not have the resources to be able to. That may actually change, since under the old system they were getting hit up twice as often in a four-year period. The point is, there’s only so much you can wring out of the frequent donors. Any candidate will still need a network of friends and associates and other like-minded folks to be able to raise the kind of cash that is needed to make oneself known in a city this size. You could argue that having four years to develop and exploit one’s network, with no restrictions on when you can ask for money, will benefit candidates who get out there and do the hard work of meeting and talking to people, especially if they can operate on a shoestring during the inactive time between elections.

But the truth is that we don’t know yet how this will play out. Hell, we haven’t even sworn in the first class of candidates elected under these new rules yet. Bear in mind that for a long time, it was virtually impossible to lose an election under the old term limits rules. From 1993 to 2009 – nine elections – only two incumbent candidates ever lost a re-election bid. In the next three elections, the last three of the two-year terms era, six incumbents lost. I guarantee you, nobody saw that coming. I suspect that with four year terms, the days of incumbents skating by with at most minimal opposition are over, because there are now fewer opportunities to run and less reason to wait till someone is termed out. I could be wrong about that – like I said, nobody really knows. Ask me again in 2019 and 2023 and we’ll see what we think then.

Date set for SCOTUS HB2 arguments

Mark your calendars.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments about the constitutionality of Texas’ strict anti-abortion law on March 2, the justices announced Thursday, setting a date for a hotly anticipated fight that could affect women’s health policy across the country.

The scheduling puts the case on track for a ruling by the end of June, which had been expected when the justices announced last month that they would consider a challenge brought by abortion providers.

[…]

The current panel of Supreme Court justices never has weighed any abortion case together and has proven to be deeply divided on social issues, making it nearly impossible to predict how they will rule. Opponents of the law have taken heart in the fact that the justices put the surgical center requirement on hold last summer after it was upheld by the 5th Circuit, however.

The scheduling was not seen as an indication of the court’s feelings on the case.

One lawyer representing the abortion providers said his side was happy because the move would allow for the case to be resolved quickly.

“It’s a short time frame, but it gives us a chance to tell the justices that this law is a sham and sets the case up for a speedy resolution, so we’re very pleased,” said David Brown of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

See here for the background. I don’t know why they chose to release this news on Christmas Eve, but SCOTUS gonna SCOTUS. I dread the whole thing, but given that I’d rather get it over with quickly. TPM has more.

Weekend link dump for December 27

What assembling IKEA furniture tells us about gender differences.

“So basically what’s going on is that NBC is allowing Bush Hagar to use her journalistic credentials and access to shill for one side in this marketing war. This, folks, is next-generation influence peddling.”

An Unbelievable Story of Rape. Which you really need to read.

What Scalzi says. And in that case, you can read the comments.

“An ancient species of human from China, thought to be long extinct, likely survived until at least the last Ice Age 14,000 years ago, new research finds.”

“The Federal Trade Commission announced that identity protection company LifeLock will pay $100 million for playing fast and loose with its customers’ sensitive information, including names, social security numbers, credit card numbers, and bank information.”

What JK Rowling says. And for that matter, what Andrew Sims says.

The connection between smog and crime.

“Humans got a new nickname this week: The Agents of Disturbance. And boy, do we deserve it.”

“My hope is that with the filing of this complaint, people will understand that transportation is also a civil rights issue.”

The story of Texas City blues singer Charles Brown, and his original recording of “Please Come Home For Christmas”, later made famous by The Eagles and Don Henley.

Look for more sophisticated phishing attacks as companies like Yahoo and Google start to phase out the use of passwords.

The linguistic history of “schlong” as a verb.

“Here are eight ways that hallucinogenic mushrooms explain the story of Santa and his reindeer.”

“Conservative commentators are running out of time for all of their dire prophecies about President Obama to come true.”

RIP, Peggy Say, who spent nearly seven years on a tireless quest for the release of her brother, journalist Terry Anderson, and fellow hostages from kidnappers in Lebanon.

“So, when you read these take-my-ball-and-go-homism pieces, remember, they’re so stupid and dishonest that you don’t need to respond to them.”

RIP, Elizabeth Laird, known as “The Hug Lady” to thousands of members of the U.S. armed forces over the years.

RIP, George Clayton Johnson, writer of the first Star Trek episode.

Programming note

I’m going to be taking a bit of a mental health break for the next ten days or so. I’ve got things queued up to publish during this time, including the last of the runoff precinct analyses, an exit interview with Mayor Parker, and the start of interviews and judicial Q&As with candidates in contested Democratic primaries. I just would not expect much if anything on more current news during this time. (Good thing there usually isn’t much of interest happening at this time.) Don’t worry, I’ll be back in the swing of things shortly after New Year’s Day, but for now I need a little down time to recharge my batteries. Thanks as always for your continued support, and Happy New Year to one and all.

Nothing says “holiday season” like immigration raids

How festive.

Immigration agents are planning to round up Central American families that have been ordered deported by a judge in response to an unexpected surge in children and families crossing the border in South Texas, a former high-ranking immigration official said Thursday.

Alonzo Peña, the deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2009 and 2010, said officials are concerned because the number of families crossing the border usually slows down this time of year, yet Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley have seen an increase in recent months.

The Border Patrol apprehended about 50,000 children and families in 2015 in the Rio Grande Valley, down from about 100,000 in 2014, but the number of apprehensions has spiked since September, according to Border Patrol statistics.

“The numbers for this time of year, normally they drop, and they’re continuing to surge and increase,” Peña said. “They’ve got to figure out ways to send a message that the gates are not open, the doors are not open and it’s not a free pass. And they’re concentrating on those that have final orders, who have exhausted their due process.”

ICE regularly conducts what it calls targeted enforcement operations, in which agents round up immigrants who fall under the agency’s priorities for deportation, including those who recently crossed the border, those convicted of crimes and those who have been ordered removed by an immigration judge. This would be the first such operation specifically targeting families.

News of the planned raids, first published by the Washington Post, which reported they would likely happen in January but hadn’t received final approval, drew criticism from activists. Hundreds of immigrants might be targeted, the newspaper reported.

“Such a roundup would be a nightmare for those families and for our claim to being a nation of refuge,” Frank Sharry, executive director of the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice, said in a written statement.

Here’s that WaPo story. Some of this may sound reasonable, but ICE’s track record is lousy, and the so-called “family detention centers” we use are horrible, for-profit jails being used to warehouse children. And not to be crass about it, but the politics of this are awful for Democratic Presidential candidates trying to draw clear distinctions between themselves and the deport-em-all GOP frontrunners. This is a bad idea, and we really need to rethink what we are doing here. ThinkProgress and TPM have more.

When should body camera video be released?

HPD is still working on it.

As the Houston Police Department begins rolling out body cameras among the rank and file, Chief Charles A. McClelland said the department is changing its policy governing how and when HPD releases videos collected by the devices.

“If we have a body camera video that’s an officer-involved shooting or complaint against one of our officers, if we have completed the administrative investigation, which looks for policy and procedure and training violations, and we have completed the criminal investigation, meaning the case went to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, I’m going to release it,” McClelland said Thursday. “I’m not going to hold it in anticipation of civil litigation.”

The shift reflects the uncharted waters many departments find themselves in as they roll out the new devices and how law enforcement is responding to the scrutiny they have faced in the last year over how they use force against civilians.

McClelland said the department is still seeking guidance from the Office of the Attorney General about when the department could release videos – particularly when a grand jury declines to indict an officer involved in a shooting.

“We need to get some clarity on that,” he said, explaining that state law only allows for videos to be released after a shooting has been fully adjudicated. A no-bill is not necessarily a final adjudication, he said, adding that while the department would likely be releasing videos sooner, the entire process could still take six months to a year before they ended up being released.

See here, here, and here for the background. I laid out my general issues in that last link. We do need the legal questions clarified, but the underlying goal here has to be transparency. The point of the cameras is for everyone to feel that information they need is available to them.

Saturday video break: The State of New York concedes the existence of Santa Claus

A climactic scene from one of my favorite movies of all time:

That is of course the one true version of Miracle on 34th Street, the original 1947 version. I do not speak of the 1994 remake, but I will concede that this is a movie that really could be reimagined in a contemporary light. I mean, my kids have never written a letter to Santa Claus. I’d bet most kids from the last ten or twenty years have never written letters to Santa. You can’t have that scene without actual by-God on-paper delivered-by-the-USPS letters to Santa. How would you do a scene where the judge is finally convinced that this is the One True Santa? I don’t know that there’s a similar authority that could be invoked today like the USPS was in 1947. How would you do it?

#IWillProtectYou

This is great and terrible at the same time.

Melissa Yassini and her 8-year-old daughter, Sofia, spend some time every evening reading messages from the thousands of people who have told Sofia not to be afraid just because she’s Muslim.

Sofia’s story of terror that she would be forced to leave America inspired a social media campaign with a hashtag, “#IWillProtectYou,” that has generated posts from soldiers, veterans and others supporting her.

“A lot of them, they call her out by name,” Melissa Yassini said on Wednesday. “That’s very important to her.”

Melissa Yassini originally shared her daughter’s response to Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump calling for a ban all Muslim immigration into the United States.

Sofia heard about Trump’s proposal while the family was watching the evening news. While Trump has said he isn’t targeting American Muslims, her mother said Sofia didn’t make that distinction.

She packed a bag with Barbie dolls, a tub of peanut butter and a toothbrush. And she checked the locks of her family’s home because she thought soldiers were coming to take her away.

[…]

Yassini said her daughter is less afraid, but still nervous. She blamed Trump’s comments about Muslims – which also include suggestions that he would require Muslims to register with the federal government or carry identification cards – for driving anti-Islamic sentiment.

“Trump’s words don’t just end at what he says on that podium,” she said. “It’s far more reaching than that. When he goes on and says these things, it almost legitimizes or empowers the general public that they can say what they feel with Muslims.”

Search Google or Facebook for plenty more. It’s wonderful that so many Americans are expressing their support for a scared little girl. It is, to use a word with which Donald Trump is familiar, disgusting that there was ever a need for this. And let’s be clear, the problem goes well beyond Donald Trump. If I thought Trump and people like him had any capacity for shame for their actions, I’d hope they are now feeling it acutely. I’ll settle for the hope that there are fewer of them that need to feel it than I fear.

Pancho Claus keeps on going

Always a pleasure to hear.

Pancho Claus [Richard Reyes] works year-round, looking for sponsorships and running an ongoing toy drive, so he can have enough to hand out each December. His day job involves driving a promotional vehicle for Taxis Fiesta, a local company that sports the colors of the Mexican flag on its fleet of cabs.

Reyes says he tries to look out for the underdogs.

It’s something his mother instilled in him while he was growing up in Houston. Help out, give back.

Now, at 64 and with a slew of health problems, it might seem a good time for Reyes to hang up his sunglasses and put away the suit. But he doesn’t think so.

“Retire from what?” he says emphatically, as he sits in the theater of Talento Bilingue on a recent afternoon, waiting for a television crew to capture his seasonal spirit. “I come in every day. When you love something, you just do it.”

I blog about Pancho Claus every time I see a story about him. The man himself suffered a heart attack six years ago, but it clearly hasn’t slowed him down. We should all be as full of the Christmas spirit as Pancho Claus. Feliz Navidad, y’all.

It’s Mel Torme time again

Every year on Christmas Day, I link to my favorite Christmas story, which stars Mel Torme. It is often shamelessly ripped off a lot, which is a Bad Thing that one Should Not Do. So click over and read it, and may your heart grow three sizes today. Merry Christmas to you and yours from me and mine.

Thursday video break: And all through the house

I’ve posted this video before, and here it is again:

I’m nowhere close to being tired of this, so look for it again next year. Happy Christmas Eve!

Maybe we just shouldn’t have nativity scenes on government property

Seems like the obvious answer to me.

A “winter solstice” display by the Freedom From Religion Foundation has been ordered removed from the Texas Capitol after Gov. Greg Abbott called it a “juvenile parody.”

The display had been approved by the State Preservation Board, of which Abbott is chairman, after it was sponsored by state Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin.

Howard said she never saw it, but said it was described to her as a poster showing the nation’s founding fathers gathered around a manger with the U.S. Constitution inside. It was hung in the Capitol basement rotunda on Friday, she said.

On Tuesday, Abbott wrote a letter to the executive director of the Preservation Board asking that it be removed. The board’s staff had approved it, but Abbott said the display is offensive, doesn’t serve a public purpose and doesn’t educate viewers.

“Far from promoting morals and the general welfare, the exhibit deliberately mocks Christians and Christianity,” said Abbott’s letter, which also called it a “juvenile parody.”

[…]

Howard said she was frustrated by the decision. The Capitol has a Nativity scene display outside and multiple Christmas trees. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has a right to express its beliefs, too, she said.

“In light of all of the rhetoric around the First Amendment, it appears to me that this is going in the exact opposite direction,” she said.

The Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation describes itself on its website as a non-profit that seeks to “promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.”

Earlier this week, Abbott released a statement expressing support for a Nativity scene outside the municipal building in the city of Orange. He said in that statement that Orange had a Constitutional right to display the religious image.

He cited the Constitution again in his letter Tuesday.

“The Constitution does not require Texas to allow displays in its Capitol that violate general standards of decency and intentionally disrespect the beliefs and values of many of our fellow Texans,” he wrote.

Well, there’s one way to settle this, and that’s in the courts. I mean, if it wasn’t the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s plan all along to file a lawsuit once their display was predictably removed, then it really was no more than a juvenile parody. So come on, FFRF. Be like the Baphomet supporters and follow through. There’s a principle here that Greg Abbott is either willfully denying or just not able to see, and he needs to be made to understand it. The Statesman, the Current, and the Press have more.

RIP, Joe Jamail

A legal legend.

Joe Jamail

Legendary Texas lawyer Joe Jamail, known as the “King of Torts,” passed away today from complications from pneumonia.

Texas Lawyer in 2014 asked Jamail whether he ever planned to retire.

“You’ll read about it in the obituary,” Jamail replied. He tried a lawsuit this year shortly after he turned 90.

“He was everything they said he was, and then some,” said Houston attorney Robin Gibbs, one of Jamail’s close friends. “Joe’s success as a lawyer in my opinion was directly attributable to his love of people. He was energized by his relationships with people—friends and family alike. … He was the best judge of human nature and what made a person tick of anybody I have ever encountered. Joe could meet somebody and in talking to them for 30 seconds, could tell you more about that person—who they were and importantly, what kind of person they were—than anybody I’ve ever encountered. That quality and capability really was at the heart in my view of his tremendous success.”

Another one of Jamail’s close friends, Vinson & Elkins partner Harry Reasoner of Houston, said that the loss of Jamail’s friendship will leave a hole in his life.

“Joe was one of the greatest trial lawyers in American history. I was fortunate enough to try some cases with him. I will never forget his genius in the courtroom. But more importantly, he was one of the greatest friends anybody could have. He was always looking for opportunities to help his friends. He was one of the most interesting people: he was widely read, always interesting to talk to, had intelligent, interesting views,” said Reasoner.

The Times notes his most famous case.

The case, in which Pennzoil accused Texaco of improperly interfering with its 1984 deal to buy part of Getty Oil, was Mr. Jamail’s first on behalf of a major corporate client, and it elevated him overnight from the lone star of Texas courtrooms to near-mythical status in American jurisprudence. But if the size of the judgment, from Pennzoil’s point of view, seemed too good to be true — it indeed was.

The [$10.5 billion] judgment withstood appeals, unlike many large awards, but Pennzoil received only a fraction. Texaco, whose net worth was roughly equal to the judgment, was virtually wiped out. Unable even to post a bond to cover the award during appeals, Texaco filed for bankruptcy and settled the case for $3 billion in 1987. Mr. Jamail’s fee was said to be $345 million.

The Chron has a lengthy obituary, and this Texas Monthly profile from January is well worth your time. They don’t make ’em like that any more. Rest in peace, Joe Jamail.

Wednesday random ten: It’s wintertime in the city

I figure today is like Friday for most people – I will certainly be on a reduced schedule for the next few days – so here’s an early song list, in honor of our benighted Ag Commissioner, Sid Miller – ten seasonal songs that do not mention the word “Christmas”.

1. Jingle Bells – Trinity University Jazz Band
2. Winter Weather – Squirrel Nut Zippers
3. Winter Wonderland – Harry Connick, Jr
4. Baby, It’s Cold Outside – Johnny Mercer & Margaret Whiting
5. Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow – Asleep At The Wheel
6. Hazy Shade Of Winter – The Bangles
7. Sometimes In Winter – Blood, Sweat & Tears
8. Sleigh Ride – Ella Fitzgerald
9. Snow In Austin – Ellis Paul
10. Happy Holidays – Bing Crosby

See here and here for some other songs in this category. May your days be merry and bright, and may anyone who wants to slap you for not saying their approved holiday greeting be visited by ghosts until they learn the true meaning of the season.

State cuts off funds to Planned Parenthood for HIV testing

Seriously?

Right there with them

Right there with them

Amid an ongoing battle over Planned Parenthood’s participation in the state Medicaid program, Texas health officials are cutting off funding to a Planned Parenthood affiliate for an HIV prevention program.

In a notice received by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast late Monday, an official with the Department of State Health Services informed the Houston-based provider that it would not renew its contract for HIV prevention services.

The long-standing grant, which funds HIV testing and prevention services, was set to expire on Dec. 31, according to the notice which was obtained by the Texas Tribune.

“There will be no further renewals of this contract,” a DSHS official wrote in the notice to Planned Parenthood.

The contract is federally funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention but managed by the state. A spokeswoman for the CDC said she was unaware of the state’s notice and did not immediately provide comment.

By ending Planned Parenthood’s contract, the state is cutting off almost $600,000 in annual funding, which the health care provider used for HIV testing and counseling, condom distribution and referral consultations.

Incredible. At least with the cutoff of Women’s Health Program funds, the state made some arrangements for alternate options. It was half-assed and still caused a huge unnecessary upheaval for thousands of women, but there was at least a token gesture towards maintaining the service. That doesn’t appear to be the case here, or at least the flunkies at the HHSC had no comment at the time the story was published. Unless PPGC decides to continue this on its own dime, this service just goes away. Because why would Greg Abbott care about people who might have HIV? And remember, the root of all this is a pack of lies that the state is hoping you’ll all forget.

The Chron story on this is here. I don’t know if this action can be wrapped into the ongoing litigation over the state cutting off Medicaid funds for Planned Parenthood, but regardless perhaps some political pressure can be applied.

Texas Democrats in Congress sent a letter to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services this month asking that they “explore all options available at the federal level” to stop the State of Texas from blocking Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding for health services.

[…]

“Members of the delegation understand that there is a precedent for intervention, and several options available for the federal government to bring Texas into compliance with federal law,” said Congressman Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth. “In the past, CMS has decreased or removed federal funding from Texas, which we do not want to happen again as doing so would decrease access to care instead of expanding it.”

Click over to see the letter, which was signed by ten members of the Texas Congressional delegation. The Observer and the Press have more.

AG’s office upholds Abbott’s line item vetos

Of course it does.

NO

Gov. Greg Abbott was well within his powers when he vetoed more than $200 million in funds approved by the Texas Legislature this year, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office wrote in an opinion issued Monday.

[…]

The nonbinding opinion, written by First Assistant Attorney General Chip Roy, has the potential to shore up the governor’s power over the budget-writing process if Roy’s interpretation ultimately held up in a court of law.

“The provisions vetoed by the Governor each designate a specific purpose and the amount to be used therefor, and they are items of appropriations subject to the Governor’s veto” Roy wrote.

Abbott’s office praised the opinion Monday evening.

“The Attorney General’s opinion upholds the governor’s constitutional authority to limit unnecessary spending and ensure fiscal solvency,” spokesman John Wittman said.

The Budget Board is co-chaired by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Joe Straus, and its members include the chairs of the House Appropriations and Senate Finance committees who write the budget. Like Abbott, Patrick also publicly criticized the board’s argument — so much so that he wanted a special committee to review the budget board and other legislative agencies. Email traffic between his office, the board and the House speaker’s office made it clear that a top Patrick aide had seen the board document in advance and approved sending it to Hegar.

The vetoes covered funding for projects at several state agencies and higher education institutions.

The largest funding item at issue was for $132 million from the Texas Facilities Commission’s budget to build a state office building in San Antonio to replace the G.J. Sutton State Complex. State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, has previously urged the city of San Antonio to consider legally challenging Abbott’s veto, noting that the new building is expected to play a key role in the revitalization of the city’s East Side area.

See here, here, and here for the background, and here for the AG opinion. I’m not qualified to address the legal points of this, but it’s hard to escape the feeling that the fix was in. I said before that this probably needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court, so I hope the city of San Antonio takes up TMF’s call to sue over this. Perhaps a better question to ask, especially of Republicans, is if it’s such a good idea to expand the Governor’s powers in this way. It’s certainly open to debate whether this is a good idea or not, but shouldn’t we at least have that debate? I’m just saying. The Chron and Trail Blazers have more.

New school board for La Marque selected

Another step in the process.

The Texas education commissioner on Friday announced the appointments of a new superintendent and a board of managers for the troubled La Marque school district, replacing a board that is legally challenging an order for the district to be annexed next year by the Texas City ISD.

The appointments were followed by an order essentially disbanding the La Marque school board and transferring authority to the Texas City school board, although the board of managers will handle affairs until Texas City takes over July 1. The order formalized Education Commissioner Michael Williams’ decision in November to dissolve La Marque ISD.

Although the school met its academic goals, the old school board had signed an agreement stating it would lose is accreditation if it also failed to meet financial standards. Members of that board argue that the rules were changed after the district submitted its financial report to the Education Agency. The agency says that the district knew about the rule change.

The deposed but defiant La Marque school board members vowed to pursue a lawsuit challenging William’s authority to disband the school district.

“The short of it is that the Texas City folks … they wanted our tax base and they are in cahoots with the commissioner,” said Richard Hooker, a member of the school board dissolved Friday who taught education at the University of Houston for 30 years and handled state school reform under former Gov. Dolph Briscoe, in the 1970s.

“We were doing everything they asked us to do,” said Hooker, who accused Williams of being anti-public education.

See here and here for the background. The names of the folks appointed to head up La marque ISD in the interim are listed later in the story. The locals have already promised to fight the order, though the track record of school districts that have been given this sentence is not encouraging. I can’t comment on the allegation about Texas City, it’s the first I’ve heard of it. Can anyone in the area or who knows more about this history weigh in?

Texas blog roundup for the week of December 21

The Texas Progressive Alliance wishes Ag Commissioner Sid Miller a happy holiday as it brings you this week’s roundup.

(more…)

Endorsement watch: Latino electeds for Gene Green

Not a big surprise.

Rep. Gene Green

Rep. Gene Green

U.S. Rep. Gene Green, a Houston Democrat, will pick up support from several Houston political players Tuesday.

The 12-term congressman faces what could be a formidable primary challenge in the form of former Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia. According to a Green campaign press release, seven Houston Democrats are ready to back his re-election: state Sens. Sylvia R. Garcia and John Whitmire, state Reps. Ana Hernandez, Garnet F. Coleman, Armando Walle and Carol Alvarado, and Harris County Constable Chris Diaz.

The endorsements’ apparent aim is to give Green cover against Garcia’s argument that the mostly-Hispanic district would be better served with Hispanic congressional representation. With residual name identification from his unsuccessful run for Houston mayor, Garcia could pose a viable threat to Green’s re-election.

I received a copy of the press release as well as the pre-release on Friday that didn’t contain the officials’ names. The event will take place at 11 AM at the Vecino Health Center (Denver Harbor Family Clinic), 424 Hahlo St., in case anyone wants to attend. As I said before, I was looking to see who might be endorsing whom in this race. Whatever the effect is on the final result, this does affect the narrative of the race. Reps. Walle, Hernandez, and Alvarado all once worked for Green, so their solidarity with their former boss is to be expected, but Sylvia Garcia was one of the candidates for the seat back in 1992; she finished third, behind Green and Ben Reyes, whom Green then defeated in the runoff and again in the 1994 primary. She had previously been talked about as a potential opponent for Green in more recent years, before her election to the State Senate. Make of that what you will.

Going back through my archives, I came across this post from 2014 about Green representing a Latino district and when that might change. Here’s what Campos, who is now working on the Garcia campaign, said at the time:

Having a Dem Latino or Latina in Congress from the H-Town area would be empowering to the community. What is missing is an articulate voice for us in Congress like on a day when the immigration issue is front and center. Who is going to argue with that?

I don’t buy into the notion that just because the local Latino leaders aren’t for something, it won’t happen. I can still recall the spontaneous immigration marches a few years ago that local Latino leaders were scrambling to lead.

I can picture a scenario where an articulate bilingual Latino or Latina leader steps up, grabs an issue and captures the attention of the community. That is certainly not racist, that’s politics. This discussion isn’t going away.

And my comment on that:

Sure, that could happen, and I agree that if it were to happen it would likely be a talented newcomer who can inspire people to pose a serious threat to Rep. Green. The problem is that that’s not sufficient. Look at the recent history of Democratic primary challenges in Texas legislative races, and you’ll see that there are generally two paths to knocking off an incumbent that don’t rely on them getting hosed in redistricting. One is via the self-inflicted wounds of an incumbent with some kind of ethics problems – think Gabi Canales or Naomi Gonzales, for example – or an incumbent that has genuinely lost touch with the base. In the past decade in Texas that has mostly meant Craddick Democrats, though one could argue that Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s win over Silvestre Reyes had elements of that.

What I’m saying is simply that there has to be a reason to dump the current officeholder. Look no further than the other Anglo Texas Democrat in Congress for that. The GOP has marked Rep. Lloyd Doggett for extinction twice, each time drawing him into a heavily Latino district in the hope of seeing him get knocked off in a primary. He survived the DeLay re-redistricting of 2003, then he faced the same kind of challenge again in 2012. His opponent, Sylvia Romo, was an experienced officeholder running in a district that was drawn to elect a Hispanic candidate from Bexar County. Having interviewed her, I can attest that she’d have made a perfectly fine member of Congress. But she never identified a policy item on which she disagreed with Doggett, and she never could give an answer to the question why the voters should replace their existing perfectly good member of Congress and his boatload of seniority with a rookie, however promising.

That’s the question any theoretical opponent to Gene Green will have to answer as well.

I think both my statement and Marc’s would stand up today. I’d say we’re likely to hear some form of these arguments over the next two months. In the meantime, I wonder if Garcia will roll out his own list of supporters soon. Better still if that list is accompanied by reasons why Garcia is the superior choice, and where he differs in matters of policy. I know that’s what I’d want to hear about if I lived in that district.

Paxton officially reindicted

The judge in AG Ken Paxton’s securities fraud case approved the amended indictments that were most recently filed against him.

Best mugshot ever

Best mugshot ever

The two first-degree felony indictments alleging securities fraud delete the amount of shares of Servergy Inc. stock that Paxton was to be compensated for. Evidence in the case has shown that Paxton received 100,000 shares total, not 100,000 shares in each case, so the amount was simply taken out of the indictments with this change.

On the third-degree felony charge alleging Paxton failed to register as a securities agent, the indictment is amended to include language that about rendering services “for compensation by advising James and Freddie Henry” and adding that the actions were on behalf of investment adviser Mowery Capital Management.

The amended indictment also adds language alleging that Paxton didn’t register “as required by the Texas State Securities Act” to make clear that the state law is at issue in this case, not federal law.

A second paragraph also added to the indictment through the amendment is identical to the first graph except for one word. It changes the word “advising” to “soliciting.”

This was the second set of amended indictments in this case. The defense offered no objections, which surely simplified matters. You can see the new charges at the link above. I’m still waiting for Team Paxton to announce that they’re appealing the ruling that denied their motions to quash.

More on the Gulf Coast Rail District and the high speed rail line

The Chron reports on the story.

Officials with the Gulf Coast Rail District, Houston-Galveston Area Council, Texas Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Transit Authority are involved in a comprehensive planning study of rail, generally in the Washington Avenue and Interstate 10 area.

The study, building off numerous previous reports and research by the agencies, is intended to provide a template for how to develop rail between a site at or near Northwest Mall and the former downtown post office.

The study could be persuasive should local officials want to encourage the Federal Railroad Administration or Texas Central Partners, the sponsor of the Dallas-to-Houston rail project, to rethink extending high-speed rail service to downtown, said Maureen Crocker, the rail district’s executive director.

“Really, time is of the essence at this point,” Crocker told rail district officials about changing the high-speed rail plans.

[…]

A 2012 study commissioned by the rail district found that commuter rail along the U.S. 290 corridor would carry an estimated 5,960 riders in 2035 without a direct connection to the central business district. With access to the urban core, ridership increased to 22,580 per day. The study did not examine the effect of the connection on intercity trains.

[…]

Though they were absent from earlier discussions, Metro officials now are engaging in the process. Metro is by far the region’s largest public transit agency and the only operator of passenger rail in Houston, apart from national Amtrak service.

“For such a study to be successful, Metro has to be a full working partner,” said Metro board member Jim Robinson, the transit agency’s appointee to the rail district.

The various agencies, including Metro, also have different priorities. Even among those interested in a rail link, the demand and types of traveler vary. Metro must consider the needs of all transit users, not just those hopping off high-speed rail, board member Christof Spieler said.

See here for the background. The involvement of Metro is good to hear, as they’re the only outfit that would be capable of operating such a train line, were it to come into existence, and because if you’re going to do something like this you may as well make it as useful as possible. Like, make it have useful stops along the way at places where people would want to go and where connections to bus lines exist. Remember, the two endpoints of this hypothetical train line are themselves hubs – downtown is obviously a locus for lots of other transit options, but so is/will be the Northwest location, which has a park and ride lot now, will have an Uptown BRT station in a couple of years, and may also serve as a stop for a commuter rail line, all in addition to the high speed rail line. You can see why there might be a lot of interest in this. There’s a lot of potential benefit at stake here, so let’s get it right.

Precinct analysis: At Large #4 runoff

Here we have the least competitive runoff of the six that were citywide.


Dist   Edwards  Morales
=======================
A        6,322    6,153
B       14,660    1,761
C       17,813   10,238
D       18,341    2,882
E        7,688   13,231
F        4,046    3,080
G       11,996   15,203
H        5,610    3,903
I        4,371    3,774
J        3,070    2,287
K       12,150    3,830

A       50.68%   49.32%
B       89.28%   10.72%
C       63.50%   36.50%
D       86.42%   13.58%
E       36.75%   63.25%
F       56.78%   43.22%
G       44.10%   55.90%
H       58.97%   41.03%
I       53.66%   46.34%
J       57.31%   42.69%
K       76.03%   23.97%
Amanda Edwards

Amanda Edwards

As was the case in November, Edwards had a dominant performance in the runoff, winning every district except E and G, and she didn’t do too badly in them, either. I saw more ads on TV for her and for Controller-elect Chris Brown than I did for the two Mayoral candidates combined. That may have helped her achieve the rare distinction of getting more votes than any other candidate, a hard thing to do when there’s a contested Mayoral race on the ballot since the undervote is so much higher for At Large contests. With this strong win, Edwards joins CM Michael Kubosh as the early favorites to not get serious challengers in 2019. Four years is an eternity, and it’s also uncharted waters for us in Houston, so it’s a bit silly to say such things now. It’s always possible for things to go wrong for a Council member, and who knows what the electorate will be like in four years. That said, AL5 will be open, AL1 is sure to draw interest, and five district Council seats will also be up – A, B, C, J, and K. Assuming nothing crazy happens between now and then, I’d surely put any of those races higher on my priority list if I were inclined to run for something.

As for Roy, he’s beginning to edge into Andrew Burks/Griff Griffin territory. He’s been on a ballot for something in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2015, winning his HCDE seat by forfeit in 2006 and making it into an At Large runoff in 2007, 2013, and now 2015. What I find fascinating, beyond the psychology of people who run for office cycle after cycle without any clear plan for a campaign or idea of how they might win, is how little support Morales seems to draw in some of these elections. The runoff in the special election in 2007 was closer than supporters of Melissa Noriega would have liked, but that was mostly about the usual problem of getting Democratic voters out to the polls at non-standard times, and she still won by ten points. He got a bit of late support in the 2009 Mayor’s race, enough to get his Election Day vote total to nudge past Peter Brown’s though not enough to threaten the top two finishers. He didn’t seem to make much of an impression in 2013 or this year. Morales was unlikely to win against Edwards, and I can certainly understand why Republican players might have put a higher priority on folks like King, Frazer, Knox, and Le. I still wonder, do they just not like the guy? Do they get the same Burks/Griff vibe that I get? Is it that he’s just not good at asking for support? Whatever the case, it’s another familiar result. I wonder if he’ll be back for more in 2019.

Metro posts solid ridership increase

Nice.

METRO’s chosen path to increase ridership by delivering improved routes, with improved connections, is producing solid, steady and most impressively significant, numbers – across the board. Ridership on all fixed routes grew to nearly 7 million in November 2015. That is an 11 percent jump from November 2014.

Local bus ridership numbers for November 2015 are up more than 4 percent from a year ago. METRORail’s Red Line ridership is up nearly 26 percent and Park & Ride boardings have increased nearly 6 and a half percent.

“We are in the first year of a five year plan to improve mobility options for the Houston region,” said METRO Board Chairman Gilbert Garcia. “The upswing in ridership on the New Bus Network launched on Aug. 16, 2015 is immensely gratifying. The countless hours of researching routes, community meetings and input, planning changes, and redirecting and training our staff is paying off and we’re confident that trend will continue to grow.”

“This is a good start and we expect our new transfer policy will increase ridership even more,” said METRO CEO Tom Lambert. “ The ability to transfer in any direction will not only make our network easier to use, it will give our riders more freedom and can save them a significant amount of money.”

METRO will unveil its new two-way transfer policy on Sunday, Jan. 24, 2016. The new Board policy changes a one way fare into a three hour ticket, allowing fare cardholders free transfers in any direction on local bus or light rail within that three hour window. Currently, transfers are free in one direction.

Not too shabby. You can see the numbers in the embedded image. A few extra details, taken from Metro Board member Christof Spieler’s Facebook page:

“November ridership, @METROHouston reimagined local network: +8% over last year weekday, +9% Saturday, +30% Sunday.”

and

“Red Line now carries nearly 55,000 a weekday, and 11 local routes (all frequent) with over 5,000 weekday boardings, 2x many as before.”

Again, that’s pretty darned nice, especially at a time when there is also some annoying news about Metro’s light rail car supplier. It shows that the whole system is seeing increases – existing light rail, local buses, and Park and Ride buses. Demand is clearly there for transit, and part of this increase is the result of new service – the two new light rail lines, buses running on normal schedules on weekends, and so forth. Keep all that in mind when you hear Uptown BRT naysayers claim that no one will use it. The same people said the same things about the Red Line once, too. Beyond the Uptown line, there are a lot of other service expansion projects being talked about. It’s time to start making some of them more concrete. The demand is there. We need the supply.