Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

March 22nd, 2023:

On being on the Board of Managers

When the TEA takeover of HISD was officially announced, I noted that the coverage included a link back to a list of people who had applied for the Board of Managers in 2019. I noted that there were some familiar names on that list, including three current Trustees, all prior to their eventual elections, as well as some other recognizable names.

I reached out to one of those people from the list, who I know in real life. I was curious if they had ever heard back from the TEA the first time around and if the TEA had gotten back in touch now that they were in the Board of Managers business again. They said they never went through the interview process back then because the injunction came down before that could happen, and that the TEA did reach out again via email last week about submitting another application; the deadline to do that is April 6, in case anyone reading this is interested.

I asked what motivated them to apply back then and whether they’d do it again now, and got this response:

My initial interest was really just fascination with the process and wanting to see how the interviews were going to be conducted. I never really thought I would be a serious candidate for the position. But, as you know, often times with these type of things people who are actually qualified just don’t apply because they don’t want to deal with all the BS and you end up getting a list of candidates who have extreme views one way or the other. I suspect given all that has happened that is what will be the case this time. It’s hard for me to see any real qualified candidates, wanting to deal with all the current discord between the superintendent, board, TEA, Union, community, etc.

I share that concern, though I’m perhaps a bit less pessimistic about it. It’s the TEA’s problem now, but it will very much be our problem if they make bad choices, or if they only have bad options from which to choose. We can certainly disagree about whether good people should apply to be on the Board of Managers or if good people can only get tainted by the things they would have to do on the BoM, but however it shakes out this Board is going to have power over HISD for two years or more. Whatever the risks are, I hope people who care about HISD will review the job description and qualifications and consider applying to be on the Board of Managers. I don’t think there’s any way around that.

Oklahoma Supreme Court upholds abortion rights

Of interest, for obvious reasons.

A divided Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a portion of the state’s near-total ban on abortion, ruling women have a right to abortion when pregnancy risks their health, not just in a medical emergency.

It was a narrow win for abortion rights advocates since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.

The court ruled that a woman has the right under the state Constitution to receive an abortion to preserve her life if her doctor determines that continuing the pregnancy would endanger it due to a condition she has or is likely to develop during the pregnancy. Previously, the right to an abortion could only take place in the case of a medical emergency.

“Requiring one to wait until there is a medical emergency would further endanger the life of the pregnant woman and does not serve a compelling state interest,” the ruling states.

In the 5-4 ruling, the court said the state law uses both the words “preserve” and “save” the mother’s life as an exception to the abortion ban.

“The language ‘except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency’ is much different from ‘preserve her life,'” according to the ruling.

“Absolute certainty,” by the physician that the mother’s life could be endangered, “is not required, however, mere possibility or speculation is insufficient” to determine that an abortion is needed to preserve the woman’s life, according to the ruling.

The court, however, declined to rule on whether the state Constitution grants the right to an abortion for other reasons.

The court ruled in the lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood, Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic and others challenging the state laws passed after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

I trust the parallel to the Texas lawsuit is clear. Slate adds some details.

Oklahoma outlaws abortion through multiple statutes, both civil and criminal, and these bans became enforceable after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. One of the statutes contains an ostensible exception for the “life of a pregnant woman.” But as the court explained on Tuesday, this exception is extraordinarily narrow: It permits termination only when the patient is “in actual and present danger” of death. According to the statute, it is not enough for a doctor to determine that the pregnancy will kill her at some point in the future; that peril must be imminent. If a doctor provides an abortion before the patient is at sufficient risk of death, they face a $100,000 fine and 10 years’ imprisonment.

Reproductive rights advocates challenged this ban under the Oklahoma Constitution. Their lawsuit was risky: Five justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans while four were appointed by Democrats. But GOP appointee James R. Winchester crossed over to create a 5–4 majority in support of “a limited right to an abortion.” The majority found that this right was supported by two provisions of the state constitution that grant “all persons” the right to “life” and “liberty.” Reviewing Oklahoma’s history, the majority explained that the state’s abortion regime had always “recognized a woman’s right to obtain an abortion in order to preserve her life,” from before statehood through admission to the union and right on up until 2021, when the present law was enacted.

Because the right to abortion to preserve the patient’s life is “deeply rooted” in Oklahoma history, the majority held, any restriction on that right is subject to strict scrutiny, bolstered by a compelling state interest. “Requiring one to wait until there is a medical emergency,” however, “does not serve a compelling state interest” because it “would further endanger the life of the pregnant woman.” The majority therefore declared that portion of the law “void and unenforceable” and announced a new standard: Abortion is permitted whenever a doctor has “determined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability that the continuation of the pregnancy will endanger the woman’s life.” That danger may arise from “the pregnancy itself” or “a medical condition that the woman is either currently suffering from or likely to suffer from during the pregnancy.”

The scope of this standard is not entirely clear, but it suggests that a patient can undergo an abortion if the doctor determines there will be a threat to her life at some future point “during the pregnancy.” This standard is different from that in Texas, where doctors are waiting until pregnant patients are on death’s door rather than terminating when conditions emerge that could be fatal later in the pregnancy. As the majority noted, “absolute certainty” that the condition would kill a patient if untreated “is not required,” though “mere possibility or speculation is insufficient.” In a long concurrence, Justice Yvonne Kauger, joined by Justices James Edmondson and Doug Combs, tried to clarify the new rule. A physician, she wrote, need not “wait until their patient has a seizure, a stroke, experiences multiple organ failure, goes septic, or goes into a coma” before terminating a dangerous pregnancy. The reasonable likelihood of life-threatening conditions justifies an immediate abortion.

Kauger pointed to a new Texas lawsuit to illustrate what this standard does not require. The plaintiffs in that case were forced to wait until they suffered sepsis, hemorrhage, and other horrific ailments before doctors would terminate. Such a narrow exception, Kauger wrote, affords women “fewer rights than a convicted murderer on death row,” imposing “a death sentence” without “due process or any provision for clemency or pardon.” (Kauger also included a long overview of women’s near-absolute denial of rights through most of American history, noting that Oklahoma’s historical abortion laws were passed at a time when men could legally beat their wives and women could not vote or serve in office.)

As that story notes, the Supreme Court of North Dakota allowed a block on its state’s abortion ban to remain in place while a lawsuit over it plays out. It too concluded that the state constitution provided for “a fundamental right to an abortion in the limited instances of life-saving and health-preserving circumstances”. Note that these are narrow exceptions to those states’ bans, but they do represent a step forward for abortion access post-Dobbs. Just having doctors not feel like their own lives are at risk when making this decision should make a difference.

There’s an irony here in that Oklahoma was one of five states to pass an anti–Obamacare “health care freedom” amendment to their state constitution, which has now been used to argue against state abortion bans in Ohio and Wyoming as well. (Wyoming just passed a law to ban abortion pills; we’ll have to see what happens when that inevitably gets challenged.) A lot of this litigation is still ongoing so it’s hard to say exactly where we’ll end up, and these states could always try to amend those amendments to craft an abortion exception. But for now at least, there’s a path forward in some red states to at least allow for minimal access.

None of this bears directly on Texas, of course. Each state has their own laws, Texas did not amend its constitution as those five other states did, and as we well know Supreme Court justices of all stripes can be and are political animals. I make no prediction about what will happen with the litigation here. What we do know is that similar lawsuits have found success elsewhere. I’ll take my hope where I can get it.

Watch out for your electric bill

Noting this for the record.

As Texans continue paying off the costs of the deadly 2021 winter storm, state lawmakers are considering a Republican-backed proposal that would allow for more frequent rate hikes and prevent cities from challenging the increases.

Supporters of Senate Bill 1015 say it would help bolster the power grid, making it easier for utilities to recover the costs of building poles and wires to transmit electricity across growing cities.

For years, cities have negotiated settlements with electric utilities over these proposed rate hikes, securing lower costs for residents and businesses if they can show the increase is excessive.

While electric utilities have to go before the Public Utility Commission every four years to justify what they charge overall, they have also been allowed since 2011 to periodically hike rates to cover new distribution lines and any related costs. As of now, companies can do a distribution-related increase  only once a year, and only if an existing rate isn’t under review by the PUC.

SB1015 would let utilities seek two distribution rate hikes a year, including when they have a rate case pending. And it would make the PUC, not cities, responsible for reviewing and challenging the hikes.

Critics say the bill would cost ratepayers millions. It would amount to “utility self-regulation,” with “the potential of multiple, sizable increases to ratepayers over a very short period,” argued Tina Paez, director of Houston’s Administration and Regulatory Affairs Department.

“The current law strikes a good balance between the utility that makes the capital investment and the ratepayers that fund it,” Paez told a panel of Senate lawmakers this week. “But the proposed bill would eliminate that balance, tipping the scales entirely in the utilities’ favor.”

The bill’s author, state Sen. Phil King, said the measure “is about trying to bring consistency and efficiency” to the process of recouping costs.

Aside from distribution costs, utilities are allowed to seek rate hikes up to twice a year for work on transmission lines, which carry electricity from power stations to substations (as opposed to from substations to homes and businesses). King said his bill would apply the same standard to both transmission and distribution lines.

The Weatherford Republican also said he wants to reduce the legal fees that utilities pay when cities challenge their interim rate hikes. Utilities are entitled to pass those litigation costs on to ratepayers.

“At the end of the day, whatever we do to streamline the administrative process, the review process, theoretically reduces attorneys fees, reduces other costs involved, and that ultimately saves the person paying the bill a lot of money,” King said.

The proposal comes as CenterPoint Energy, the regulated utility that distributes most of the electricity in the Houston area, prepares to recoup $200 million it spent to lease mobile power generators during emergencies.

I don’t know enough about this to say with any confidence what the effect of SB1015 would be. But I do know that I don’t trust Phil King, I fear the Republican attacks on cities’ authority, and any bill involving regulation of utilities that doesn’t come with the support of stakeholders like cities and consumer groups is automatically suspicious to me. Your mileage may vary, but that’s my perception of this one.