Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

May 20th, 2021:

Paxton and P Bush attempt to out-Trump each other

Stop before you go blind, that’s my advice.

Land Commissioner George P. Bush is sending strong signals that he’s preparing to launch a primary challenge against Attorney General Ken Paxton, hoping it can center on Paxton’s legal troubles and how he has run his office.

But can Bush keep former President Donald Trump out of it — both figuratively and literally?

It is one of the most glaring questions as the foundation is laid for what could be Texas’ marquee statewide primary next year. Both men have been Trump supporters, but Bush has a unique history with the former president as the most prominent member of the Bush political dynasty to embrace Trump. And in recent months, Paxton has grown only more overt in his affiliation with the former president, making him an inevitable topic in Paxton’s reelection bid.

Bush has insisted there is “no separation” between him and Paxton when it comes to supporting Trump. But even some of Bush’s supporters concede that, fair or not, Bush would have to contend with running with a last name that still evokes strong emotions among Trump backers.

“It’s very unfortunate to him because George P. Bush is his own man,” said Eric Mahroum, Trump’s deputy state director during the 2016 campaign in Texas — and an early supporter of Bush challenging Paxton. “I try to educate the base … that no, he was so supportive and helped us. He was willing to do whatever to get us across the finish line in 2016.”

Mahroum said his respect for Bush “just went to another level” when he came out in support of Trump in the summer of 2016 and urged Texas Republicans to unify behind the nominee. Mahroum suggested it took Paxton longer to “come out vocally” for Trump back then.

Paxton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story. But it has not entirely ignored Bush, dinging him last month as a “potential opponent more interested with the narrative being set by the liberal media than on the real and important issues facing Texas families and small businesses.”

That came after Bush said he is “seriously considering” challenging Paxton, saying that “the top law enforcement official in Texas needs to be above reproach.” Paxton has been indicted on state securities fraud charges for most of the time since he took office in 2015, and more recently, he reportedly came under FBI investigation over allegations from former top deputies that he abused his office to help a wealthy donor. Paxton has denied wrongdoing in both cases.

Bush has invited supporters to “campaign kick-off rally” June 2 in Austin. An invitation obtained by The Texas Tribune does not specify the office that Bush is running for but bills him as the “next generation of conservative leadership.”

It goes from there, and there’s only so much my stomach can take. Maybe P Bush runs against Paxton, and maybe he doesn’t. Maybe Paxton finally gets frog-marched out of his office by the FBI, and nobody cares about which one of them can stroke Trump’s ego the hardest. Wear a raincoat and try to avoid being slimed, it’s going to be a long campaign.

Abbott signs massive anti-abortion bill

We’ll see who sues who first.

Right there with them

Gov. Greg Abbott signed into a law Wednesday a measure that would prohibit in Texas abortions as early as six weeks — before some women know they are pregnant — and open the door for almost any private citizen to sue abortion providers and others.

The signing of the bill opens a new frontier in the battle over abortion restrictions as first-of-its-kind legal provisions — intended to make the law harder to block — are poised to be tested in the courts.

Abortion rights advocates have promised to challenge the new law, which they consider one of the most extreme nationwide and the strictest in Texas since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. It would amount to an outright ban on abortions, as the six-week cutoff is two weeks after a missed menstrual cycle, opponents say.

The law takes effect in September.

[…]

Instead of having the government enforce the law, the bill turns the reins over to private citizens — who are newly empowered to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps someone get an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected. The person would not have to be connected to someone who had an abortion or to a provider to sue.

Proponents of the new law hope to get around the legal challenges that have tied up abortion restrictions in the courts. While abortion providers typically sue the state to stop a restrictive abortion law from taking effect, there’s no state official enforcing Senate Bill 8 — so there’s no one to sue, the bill’s proponents say.

“It’s a very unique law and it’s a very clever law,” said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. “Planned Parenthood can’t go to court and sue Attorney General [Ken] Paxton like they usually would because he has no role in enforcing the statute. They have to basically sit and wait to be sued.”

Legal experts have been divided on the strategy, and abortion rights advocates have said they plan to fight regardless.

Elisabeth Smith, chief counsel for state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which has represented abortion providers who have sued Texas officials, said it and other abortion rights organizations are “not going to let this six-week ban go unchallenged.”

Drucilla Tigner, policy and advocacy strategist of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said the “governor’s swipe of a pen can’t change the Constitution.”

While the law amounts to the most extreme abortion ban in the country, “abortion is both legal in Texas and supported by the majority of Texans,” Tigner said.

Abortion rights advocates and lawyers say the new law would allow for a cascade of lawsuits against abortion providers, that would sap their time and money even if they ultimately won in court.

Family members, abortion funds, rape crisis counselors and other medical professionals could be open to lawsuits, under the broad language in the bill, according to legal experts and physicians who opposed the measure. People who sued would be awarded at least $10,000, as well as costs for attorney’s fees, if they won.

“Every citizen is now a private attorney general,” Blackman said. “You can have random people who are against abortion start suing tomorrow.”

See here for the previous update. Not really much else to say until someone files a lawsuit one way or the other. Either this law as designed is a diabolically clever tactic for which there is no good countermove and thus gets replicated in states across the country, or it gets blocked and the zealots have to go back to the drawing board. In the meantime, winning more elections so laws like these don’t get passed in the first place would be nice. The Chron and the Texas Signal have more.

Trying to make the sausage less bad

RG Ratcliffe walsk us through some bipartisan negotiations on HB6, the House version of the big Senate voter suppression bill, as three Democrats who want to make this bad bill slightly less bad work with a couple of Republicans who want to avoid an all-nighter and make defending this sucker in court a little easier.

[Rep. Joe] Moody says he went into the meeting feeling haunted by a similarly contentious fight over a bill in 2017. That year, Republicans had drafted SB 4, which was set to outlaw sanctuary cities, which decline to cooperate with federal immigration authorities who seek to deport undocumented immigrants who are held in county jails. Democrats had prepared more than 150 amendments and planned to spend the night of debate shaming Republicans on the floor, even if they knew they didn’t have the votes to pass the amendments. In retribution, Republicans filed an amendment of their own, to add a provision giving police the power to demand proof of legal residency from suspected undocumented immigrants. It was a provision many believed would lead to racial profiling. The “show me your papers” amendment promptly passed, as did the bill at large. Democrats couldn’t even claim a moral victory. “I was in all those rooms on SB 4, and I remember the feeling when it fell apart,” Moody recalled for me. “You got to learn the lessons from mistakes like that.”

Moody saw the same potential debacle approaching in the voting-restriction bill this year. Even though the House version was less onerous than its counterpart in the Senate, the bill still would have enhanced jail penalties for voting crimes that are most often committed through ignorance of the rules. And it would have made it a state jail felony for any local election official to distribute a vote-by-mail application to a voter who did not request it, as Chris Hollins, then the Harris County clerk, tried to do last year. It wasn’t legislation Democrats could support.

[…]

The Republicans wanted to avoid a divisive floor fight, and a demonstration of cooperation could work to their advantage in court. (There are already at least six challenges to the election bill Georgia passed in March, and the Harris County commissioners voted last week to file a lawsuit over any restrictive legislation the Lege passes.) The GOP representatives were joined by an attorney, Elizabeth Alvarez Bingham, the former vice chair of the Dallas County Republican Party. Bingham sits on the board of the American Civil Rights Project (formerly known as the Equal Voting Rights Institute), which unsuccessfully sued Dallas county commissioners in 2015, alleging that they discriminated against white voters by gerrymandering municipal districts to favor minorities. But Bingham, an election law litigator, was instrumental in urging the Republican negotiators to accept most of the proposed changes to the bill, Democratic negotiators told me.

The negotiations had made progress by a quarter past eight, but the leaders needed time to continue without the bill actually being debated further on the floor. Under guidance from his caucus, freshman Dallas Democrat John Turner called a point of order, arguing that the bill violated an obscure House rule. Members in the meeting knew the legislative maneuver was unlikely to kill the bill, but it would provide the needed delay for negotiations to keep going.

Over the course of the negotiation, which lasted well past midnight, Democrats earned concessions on about three quarters of their requests to water down the bill. They ensured that the mere act of violating a voting rule would not be regarded as a crime unless the person who committed the infraction knew he or she was breaking the law. (This could retroactively cover the case of Crystal Mason, a Fort Worth woman sentenced to five years in prison for casting a ballot while on supervised release on a tax fraud charge, even though she didn’t know she was not eligible to vote.) Democrats also negotiated the inclusion of a clause allowing election judges to remove poll watchers who violate state law by intimidating voters. And they added language barring poll watchers from obstructing a voter, while also making it a criminal offense for someone to give a voter false information with the intent of preventing them from casting a ballot.

I appreciate the behind-the-scenes view, and I appreciate the efforts of Reps. Moody, Canales, and Bucy to try to do harm reduction. There’s only so much you can do when you’re outnumbered, and the experience from 2017 certainly colored their perspective. This may all wind up being for naught, as the bill has now gone to a conference committee, but at least they can say they did the best they could have done under the circumstances.

In the meantime, the House passed SB155 yesterday, which is not specifically an elections bill but will almost certainly have an effect on the elections process. The caption reads simply, “relating to the use of information from the lists of noncitizens and nonresidents excused or disqualified from jury service.” The point of the bill is to have registered voters removed from the rolls if they are excused or disqualified from jury duty for lack of residence in the county. That may sound sensible, but there are a couple of glaring issues. One is that you have a 30 day deadline to update your address on your driver’s license, but have until the next registration deadline (which may be more than a year away) to update your voter registration. If you get called to jury duty in the interim, and you tell them you can’t serve because you’ve moved out of county, you could wind up getting prosecuted for having an invalid voter registration, because all of this information will be sent to the Attorney General’s office on a quarterly basis. What could possibly go wrong from there? Dems made multiple attempts to amend this bill to make it more of an administrative fix – which is what it should be – and less of a potential criminal liability, but they were all shot down, on partisan votes. See here for the discussion and record votes on the amendments. This is the kind of thing that gets a lot less attention than the big headline bills, but could have a real negative effect on people down the line. And it’s on its way to the Governor’s desk.

Texas blog roundup for the week of May 17

The Texas Progressive Alliance wishes India the tiger a safe and happy life as it brings you this week’s roundup.

(more…)

HISD has a Superintendent in mind

They will announce this person on Friday. After that, insert shrug emoji here.

Houston ISD trustees expect to name a lone superintendent finalist Friday, three days earlier than initially planned, barring another last-minute intervention by the state.

Trustees are expected to complete their candidate interviews and agree on a finalist Thursday, then take a formal vote and publicly introduce their selection Friday, HISD Board President Pat Allen said.

The board’s selection would take over in mid-June from Interim Superintendent Grenita Lathan, who has held the position since the abrupt department of Richard Carranza in early 2018. Lathan accepted the superintendent position at Springfield Public Schools in Missouri two months ago, after HISD board members voted against retaining her long term.

It remains unclear, however, whether trustees will get to complete their superintendent search.

Two state-appointed conservators overseeing the district’s special education department could order trustees to halt their effort at any point, a step that a different conservator took in 2019 as HISD board members closed in on naming a lone finalist. State law allows a conservator to “direct an action to be taken” by the board of trustees, superintendent or any campus principal.

See here, here, and here for some background. As the story notes, there’s the ongoing litigation over whether the TEA can take over HISD, as well as Rep. Harold Dutton’s bill that would moot said litigation, which he is quite determined to pass, standing as potential obstacles. My personal opinion is that if there is no current legal impediment to the Board naming a Superintendent, then the Board should be able to name a Superintendent. I’m sure the courts and the Legislature will defer to my opinion. Whoever this finalist is, I wish you all the best of luck, and a lifetime supply of Maalox. You’ll need both of them.