Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

February 14th, 2023:

The last thing we need is more people in the jail

Feb 14th, 2023
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

This is a rare place where Democrats have leverage. Make good use of it.

With an eye on Harris County, Texas lawmakers are considering new measures aimed at keeping more defendants accused of violent and sexual crimes behind bars as they await trial, building off recent changes that clamped down on the use of cashless bail in state courts.

Republicans have made the issue a priority in recent campaigns and legislative sessions, arguing that stricter bail laws are needed to curtail a rise in the number of defendants, particularly in Harris County, charged with new crimes while out on bond. State GOP leaders have pinned most of the blame on local Democratic judges, who they accuse of setting overly lenient bail conditions.

Democrats and civil rights groups say the GOP’s 2021 bail overhaul, Senate Bill 6, has done little to address the problem because it sets limits only on no-cost and low-cost bonds — meaning those who can afford to post bail can still do so, while only those without enough cash are forced to stay behind bars.

Opponents of the GOP bail restrictions have pointed to a Chronicle analysis that found most people accused of murder while out on bond in Harris County had secured their release by paying bail.

Restricting the use of cash bail would require amending the Texas Constitution, a step proposed by Republican lawmakers in 2021 that failed to attract enough support from Democrats.

This session, state Sen. Joan Huffman — the Houston Republican who authored the GOP’s priority bail bill in 2021 — is planning to take a second crack at an amendment that would authorize judges to deny bail “under some circumstances to a person accused of a violent or sexual offense.”

For now, the Texas Constitution places firm restrictions on when judges can deny bail outright, generally guaranteeing defendants a right to pretrial release unless they are charged with capital murder or meet certain criteria for repeat violent offenses. Two years ago, Republicans sought to expand those conditions, but the measure died in the House over opposition from Democrats who said the proposed changes were too broad.

[…]

Huffman has said she also wants to expand the 2021 GOP bail bill to deny no-cost personal bonds to defendants charged with violating family violence protective orders and unlawfully possessing a weapon as a convicted felon. The bill already prohibits the use of personal bonds for some 20 violent and sexual crimes.

It also provides judges and magistrates with more information about a defendant’s criminal history and requires them to consider that factor, among others, when setting bail.

Local felony court judges, for their part, say they have set higher bail amounts for felony charges in recent years, but are still hamstrung in most cases by the bail guarantees in the state constitution.

State Rep. Ann Johnson, D-Houston, said she is “open” to a bail-related constitutional amendment, but only if Republicans also commit to changes aimed at tackling Harris County’s enormous backlog of cases and reducing mass incarceration.

“I think what we have to be mindful of is not overdoing it. We’re talking about changing the foundation of our constitutional requirements,” said Johnson, the former chief human trafficking prosecutor in Harris County. “If I thought that would make you safer, I’m open to those things. But that, in the absence of the investment in the infrastructure of the public safety system, the criminal justice system, is expedient. Yeah, it sounds good. But I don’t know that it has the effect that we all desperately want.”

To put it mildly, putting more people in jail so they can just wait there until their trial is a really bad idea right now. Ensuring that the only people who get stuck in jail are those who can’t afford to buy their way out is both a bad idea and almost certainly unconstitutional. The price of any cooperation from Democrats, who have to vote for this in at least some numbers to meet the two-thirds threshold, starts with adding more felony court judges – Harris County has received exactly one new district criminal court judge since 1984, when there were two million fewer people living here – and really needs to include a lot more funding for mental health services for the county jail. Really, that should read “expanding Medicaid”, because that would provide a ton of funding for mental health services and it would be mostly paid for by the feds, but we know that’s not going to happen. It would still be a good idea to make the point about it at every opportunity anyway.

This is one thing Republicans can’t do on their own. If they want our help, we need to have a list of things for them to agree to first. Don’t fumble the chance, y’all.

San Antonio marijuana decriminalization referendum already facing a legal challenge

Feb 14th, 2023
by Charles Kuffner.
1 comment

Don’t think this one will work, but after that who knows.

Opponents of the so-called Justice Charter have filed an emergency petition asking the Texas Supreme Court to require separate votes for each of its provisions, including decriminalizing marijuana and abortion and banning police chokeholds and no-knock warrants.

Progressive groups last month submitted roughly 38,000 petition signatures to get the proposed charter amendment included on the May municipal election ballot, a move San Antonio City Attorney Andy Segovia signed off on last week.

On Friday the anti-abortion group Texas Alliance for Life Inc. (TAL) filed a petition requesting that the city reject the proposed ballot language, which it says violates a state law prohibiting multi-subject charter amendments, and require each issue to be listed and voted on separately.

“Respondents have no discretion to force voters to approve or reject, all or nothing, charter provisions dealing with issues as varied as theft, graffiti, or prohibiting cooperation with state agencies regulating abortion providers,” wrote attorney Eric Opiela, a former executive director of the Republican Party of Texas.

City Council is expected to order that the ballot proposition appear on the May 6 ballot Thursday, a formality they don’t get to exercise judgment over. The deadline for setting the May ballot is Friday.

“Once Friday’s deadline passes, it is impossible for Respondent, San Antonio City Council to add additional measures to the May 6, 2023, ballot, preventing the separation of the proposed charter amendments into their separate subjects as required by law,” Opiela wrote.

“The tens of thousands of residents who signed this petition understood that each of these police reforms are part of a comprehensive approach to public safety, and we expect to vote on them in the same way they were presented — as one unified package,” Act 4 SA Executive Director Ananda Tomas said in a statement Sunday night.

Segovia said the city would defer to the amendment’s authors.

“We have until noon on Tuesday to respond to the Texas Supreme Court. Our position remains that the Council will put the petition on the ballot as one Justice Policy proposal because that was the way it was presented to those who signed the petition,” Segovia said in an email Sunday.

See here for the previous entry. I Am Not A Lawyer, but I don’t know offhand of any successful recent efforts to split up a ballot proposition like this. These are all criminal justice reform measures, and if the law is usually interpreted broadly then I don’t think there’s a leg to stand on. I also think that SCOTx would prefer to wait until the voters have their say, as then they have a chance to duck the question. If they’re going to act I’d expect it to happen before SA City Council votes to put the measure on the ballot on Thursday. So we’ll know soon enough. TPR has more.

Big XII now looking to expand

Feb 14th, 2023
by Charles Kuffner.
Comments are off for this post

Probably a good idea to try, as a defensive measure if nothing else.

The Big 12’s next step is clear after the early exit of Texas and Oklahoma was agreed upon Thursday night. The conference now plans to aggressively pursue expansion in some form, sources tell CBS Sports.

This is the culmination of a three-pronged vision put forth by commissioner Brett Yormark once he took office in August 2022. The first two steps — negotiating a new TV deal and resolving the Texas-Oklahoma situation — have been achieved. His full attention now turns to adding more teams to the Big 12.

Whether it will be accomplished is another issue. However, in Yormark’s short history leading the league, it’s proven best not to bet against him. Almost immediately after USC and UCLA announced they were leaving for the Big Ten, the Big 12 showed interest in the Pac-12’s four corners schools (Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah).

[…]

More recently, Yormark has advocated for Gonzaga joining as a basketball-only member. Even though the financial gain for the Big 12 would be minimal by adding the Zags, Yormark sees a future increase in college basketball rights as streaming giants get more involved in sports. Gonzaga has options (the Pac-12 and Big East) as it appears motivated to finally make a move to major conference.

The reason for any Big 12 expansion: moving West. Yormark seeks game inventory in the Pacific Time Zone, which would allow the once Midwest-based league to stretch from coast to coast. More importantly, it would give the Big 12 a presence in all four primary television “windows” — noon, 3:30, primetime and late night (based on the Eastern Time Zone).

Going forward, the SEC and Big Ten will dominate those first three windows. Having a presence in the fourth window would give the Big 12 some level of exclusivity. (ESPN is also interested in partnering with the Pac-12 for late-night games.)

While it’s not clear whether the Big 12 could get pro rata (equal value of $31.66 million per year) for any new members, it may not matter that much. Schools are desperate to improve their standing in what might be the last round of realignment for the next decade.

For example, industry sources have speculated both SMU and San Diego State might accept less than a full share if they join the Pac-12. SDSU remains a candidate for the Big 12 if a Pac-12 move falls through. CBS Sports reported this week a new Pac-12 TV deal may hinge on adding those two schools.

Any Big 12 expansion continues to revolve around that Pac-12 TV deal.

See here for the last update. Basically, whether the Big XII can poach these Pac 12 schools will likely determine whether the PAC 12 can continue as an entity or go the way of the Southwest Conference. If they can hold onto those four schools and maybe add the two others mentioned, they’re still viable for now. Other than maybe Gonzaga as basketball-only – which might lead to scheduling weirdness unless they can get a second school with a similar sports profile to join then – it’s not clear to me what the other attractive options for the Big XII are. On the other hand, in the immediate aftermath of UT and OU bailing out there was speculation that the Big XII might not be long for this world, so at least they seem to be in better shape than they were a year or so ago. Until further notice, though, the wolf is presumed to be at the door. May the odds be ever in your favor.