Some cold water for the Wendy for Governor bandwagon

Posted on July 3, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Courtesy of PPP:

Sen. Wendy Davis

Sen. Wendy Davis

PPP’s new Texas poll finds that Wendy Davis made a good impression on voters in the state last week- but that Rick Perry has also enhanced his political standing considerably over the last five months, making him tough to beat for reelection.

39% of Texans have a favorable opinion of Davis to 29% with a negative one after her week in the spotlight. Her net favorability is up 14 points from -4 at 15/19 in January. By a 45/40 margin voters say they support her filibuster last week, and by a narrow 44/43 margin they don’t think Perry should call another special session. Voters oppose Senate Bill 5 by an 8 point margin, 28/20, although the 52% with no opinion is a reality check on how closely most people follow state politics.

Nevertheless Davis would trail Rick Perry by 14 points in a hypothetical match up, 53/39. While Davis’ standing has improved over the last five months so has Perry’s. Although he remains unpopular, with 45% of voters approving of him to 50% who disapprove, his approval is up a net 8 points from January when he was at a -13 spread (41/54). In addition to his lead over Davis, Perry also leads Julian Castro 50/43, Bill White 50/40, and Annise Parker 52/35. In January he led this quartet of Democrats by an average of 4 points, now he leads them by an average of 12.

The main reason for Perry’s improved numbers is enhanced standing with the Republican base, and that’s playing out in his primary election numbers too. In January Perry’s approval with GOP voters was 68/26, but that’s up to 81/16 now. Perry now leads Greg Abbott 46/34 in a hypothetical primary election, up from 41/38 in January.

Texans have still had enough of Perry- only 30% want him to seek another term, compared to 60% who think he should step aside. But for now at least it looks like he’s strong enough to slip through a primary, and if he’s able to do that Texas’ Republican lean would likely get him elected to his 4th term.

Abbott still does better than Perry in match ups against all of the Democrats except for Davis. He only leads her 48/40, compared to Perry’s 14 point lead. But against Castro (48/34), White (48/36), and Parker (50/31) Abbott’s leads exceed Perry’s.

See here for the full poll data. You can fudge things around a bit if you want, but there’s not much of a toehold there. Really, I think PPP buried the lede on this, since its numbers show San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro within seven points of Perry. Of course, we know Castro isn’t running, so that’s strictly fantasy football stuff. As I suggested before, Davis’ higher profile might actually work against her a bit, in that the forceful reminder of her Democratic bona fides might dampen some of her previously demonstrated crossover appeal. I feel confident that there remain plenty of Republican voters who would abandon Rick Perry for a reasonable alternative. Whether this poll is just reflecting some in-the-moment tribalism, or it’s evidence that Davis isn’t the alternative they’re seeking I can’t say – perhaps the next poll will give a hint. But let’s be clear that while Davis likely is the best candidate Dems can get for 2014, she’d have a steep hill to climb. It’s doable under reasonably optimistic assumptions, but it sure wouldn’t be easy.

So let’s all take a deep breath and remind ourselves that this is still a long journey. As Wayne Slater writes, even without any short-term game, the Davis ascendancy can and should pay dividends to the Dems. If all this has the effect of getting more people involved in Battleground Texas and other organizations working for the progressive cause, it’s all to the good. If we have to wait beyond 2014 to see it all bear fruit, then so be it. In the meantime, we can go back to serious business like Wendy Davis’ hair color. Because that’s what the people really want to know about.

Posted in Election 2014 | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

There are other items on this session’s agenda

Posted on July 3, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

I know, hard to believe, but there are two non-abortion items on the session agenda, and the Senate has already taken preliminary action on two of them.

Sen. Robert Nichols

Six hours before a marathon state House committee hearing on abortion, two Senate committees quickly kicked out less controversial bills on transportation funding and criminal justice reform to the full Senate on Tuesday morning.

The Senate could vote on Senate Joint Resolution 1 and Senate Bill 2 as early as next week. The measures address two issues — transportation infrastructure funding and sentencing guidelines for 17-year-old murderers — that Gov. Rick Perry included in the second special session’s agenda. Similar pieces of legislation died on the last day of the first special session amid a dramatic fight over abortion legislation. Both Senate Transportation Chairman Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, and state Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Southside Place, refiled their legislation soon after Perry announced a second special session.

In a nine-minute hearing, the Senate Finance Committee voted 11-0 Tuesday morning in favor of SJR 1, from Nichols, which matches the version of Senate Joint Resolution 2 that the Legislature nearly passed last week. The measure would ask voters to approve amending the state Constitution to divert half of the oil and gas severance taxes currently earmarked for the Rainy Day Fund to the State Highway Fund, raising nearly $1 billion a year in additional financing for road construction and maintenance. The Texas Department of Transportation has said it needs about $4 billion in additional funding each year to maintain current congestion.

About 40 minutes later, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee voted 4-0 in favor of SB 2, from Huffman, which is similar to Senate Bill 23 from the first special session. The bill revises the sentencing guidelines for 17-year-olds convicted of capital murder to comply with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that eliminated mandatory life without parole for capital murderers younger than 18.

Both measures could be debated on the Senate floor as early as next week.

Sen. Nichols incorporated changes that the House added to his ball in the first special session, while Sen. Huffman’s bill was the same one she’d filed before, without including the House changes. Had the House simply voted on these bill as they were they wouldn’t have needed to be re-voted on by the Senate and thus wouldn’t have been casualties of the Davis filibuster. Alternately, David Dewhurst could have put Nichols’ and Huffman’s bills on the agenda ahead of SB5 last time around, but I guess he didn’t expect Davis to be able to keep up her effort for that long. Silly man.

In theory, the Democrats have some leverage over the transportation bill, since it is a joint resolution and thus needs a two-thirds majority in each chamber. That possibility was raised in the previous session – basically, the Dems could refuse to vote for SJR1 unless the abortion legislation was altered in some fashion, which would mean it would not have enough votes to pass. As with a quorum break, the main problem with that gambit is that as long as Rick Perry is willing to keep calling special sessions – and by now we should all be clear on the fact that he is willing – such leverage is necessarily short-lived. Once the Dems hold up their end of the bargain and vote for SJR1, their influence vanishes. If we knew for a fact that the next time the Lege convened would be 2015, this tactic could work. In the world we live in, all it can do is prolong the agony.

Anyway. Yesterday was also the day for the House State Affairs Committee hearing on HB2, the omnibus anti-abortion bill. As before, BOR is liveblogging things, so check over there for the latest updates. I’ll report on it after the hearing is over. The Trib has more.

UPDATE: As expected, the show hearing in the House ended at 12:01 AM, with the committee voting the bill out afterward on partisan lines 8-3. The Observer and Texpatriate have more.

Posted in That's our Lege | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on There are other items on this session’s agenda

Texas blog roundup for the week of July 1

Posted on July 3, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

The Texas Progressive Alliance stands with Wendy as it brings you this week’s roundup.

Continue reading →

Posted in Blog stuff | Tagged , | Comments Off on Texas blog roundup for the week of July 1

Who else is afraid of Battleground Texas?

Posted on July 2, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

FreedomWorks, that’s who.

The conservative outside group FreedomWorks has drawn up plans to spend nearly $8 million mobilizing and expanding the GOP base in Texas, in a move to counter state and national Democratic efforts to make the state more electorally competitive, POLITICO has learned.

In a twelve-page internal strategy document obtained by POLITICO, FreedomWorks says that the Republican Party should be alarmed in particular by the Democratic group Battleground Texas, which several Obama campaign officials founded this year with the mission of organizing liberal-leaning constituencies that currently vote at below-average rates.

The FreedomWorks memo likens that offensive to the so-called “Colorado Model” – a successful initiative by Democratic donors and organizers to make Colorado a blue state over the past decade – and spells out an itemized budget for responding from the right.

“In 2012, Team Obama turned out their core supporters by registering new voters, offering transportation to the polls and emphasizing early votes. Battleground Texas is sure to employ similar tactics to take advantage of these untapped constituencies,” the memo says. “But FreedomWorks is ready to fight. We have a track record of engaging the grassroots through previous battles and victories, and have focused for years on rebuilding the Republican brand by holding legislators accountable for their votes.”

The ambitious FreedomWorks budget – which comes to just under $7,950,000 – calls for hiring 10 to 20 field directors ($240,000) and opening field offices in Austin, Houston, San Antonio and Dallas ($204,000).

It outlines extensive research and outreach efforts, including $1.8 million to be spent collecting issue surveys from Texans, $1.6 million for online media advertising, $1 million for paid neighborhood canvassing and hundreds of thousands of dollars for Facebook, Twitter and email outreach.

The budget also sets aside a quarter-million dollars for “scientific field experiments [which] will be used to show which grassroots activities provide the most bang for our buck.”

All told, it looks like a game plan designed to anticipate and mirror the activities of an Obama campaign-trained Democratic operation, with all the bells and whistles of the president’s famously sophisticated 2012 campaign.

Notably, the FreedomWorks strategy memo does not call for revising the Republican Party’s traditional issue positions. On the contrary, the group’s theory of the case insists that fidelity to small-government principles will attract Latinos and young voters, who are currently skeptical of the GOP in part because it has failed to outline a coherent agenda for economic growth.

Whatever. Look, no one ever believed that Battleground Texas would be uncontested in its efforts. I expect the Republicans to spend a bunch of money in Texas to hold onto what they’ve got – they’re already spending a bunch of money to do that, and there’s no reason to believe that will end anytime soon. I don’t know how many people they think they can find that already agree with them but don’t vote regularly, but I’m sure there are a few out there. It’s not my concern, and it’s not BGT’s concern. If they think that the polls are wrong about what Latinos and young voters want – there’s a lot of overlap between those two groups these days – or they think that the Latinos and young voters themselves are wrong about what they want, I say knock yourself out. We’ll see who’s right in the end, and with the events of this past Tuesday providing a strong wind at our backs, I like our chances better than I like theirs.

Posted in Show Business for Ugly People | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Protest day at the Capitol

Posted on July 2, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Pretty impressive:

View from the Capitol on July 1

The story:

Opponents of Republican-backed legislation to dramatically curtail abortion rights in Texas descended on the Capitol by the thousands on Monday, spurred on by musicians, celebrities and their new hero: filibustering state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth.

Meanwhile, about 100 supporters of the omnibus abortion legislation marched to the Capitol on Monday morning to a press conference orchestrated by women who deeply regretted their decision to have an abortion.

The abortion rights rally drew a crowd that organizers estimated to be roughly 5,000 people and featured performances by Bright Light Social Hour — the band introduced a new song with one word, “Wendy” — and singer Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks.

[…]

Other Democratic politicians on hand were received by the crowd like rock stars, something to which they are not accustomed in the Republican-dominated Legislature. “This is the beginning of something that Democrats and the Democratic party have been missing for at least 10 years,” state Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin, told the Tribune.

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called on the crowd to continue opposing the anti-abortion bills, which have been introduced this session as House Bill 2 and Senate Bill 1.

“We’ve been shut down and told to shut up,” she said, adding, “My question is, Can you hear us now?”

State Rep. Chris Turner, D-Arlington, the chair of the House Democratic Caucus, acknowledged to the Tribune that defeating the bills would be difficult. “They have the numbers and the clock on their side,” he said of the Republicans. “All we can do is fight like hell every day, and that’s what we intend to do.”

Stace has more on SB1, and BOR has more on HB2. Several other bills have been filed as well – Nonesequiteuse has a list. BOR has a nice liveblog of the event, and if your Facebook and/or Twitter accounts are anything like mine, you likely couldn’t fail to see a ton of updates and awesome photo many times.

For their part, Republicans intend to take away their options, which means no two thirds rule, limited hearings, not accepting amendments, and limiting debate:

Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said that if an attempt to filibuster the omnibus abortion bill, now filed as Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 2 in the second special session, he immediately will rise to stop it.

“I plan to stop Sen. Davis or any Democrat from attempting, for the second time, to slow down or kill our package of pro-life legislation,” Patrick said. “Sen. Davis and the mob had their say last week, it’s time to pass this bill and I intend to do all I can to do so. It’s time the pro-life community had their voice heard.”

Last Tuesday, Patrick gathered the 16 votes he needed to pass a motion to “call the previous question,” a procedure which would have ended the historic filibuster of then-Senate Bill 5 by Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth. He said he tried several times to get Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to take the action, but “the Lt. Governor said he was not ready to do so,” according to a statement from Patrick’s office.

Dewhurst wanted to wait until 10:30 p.m., but at that point Senate democrats brought up other questions that had to be answered first, thus stalling the bill further. The time the issues were resolved by 11:45 p.m., Patrick’s statement read, but “the Lt. Governor seemed confused at that point in all of the noise and did not attempt to call the vote on the bill until it was too late.”

Because the vote wasn’t registered in the presence of the Senate, as required, it wasn’t passed, and a second special session that started Monday was called, with abortion being one of three issues up for discussion. Patrick said last week’s events won’t be repeated.

“The Lt. Governor should recognize me or another member who rises to call the question,” the statement said. “He gave the Senator in the pink tennis shoes 12 hours to speak last Tuesday. It’s time he gave me or another conservative pro-life Republican a few minutes to move the question and pass the bill.”

Yes, Danny, we know, it’s all about you and your campaign. If David Dewhurst had any cojones, he’d ignore you for the fun of seeing you sputter. And I’m sure you’d never be caught dead wearing anything pink.

We all know how this is going to end, sooner or later. What matters in the end is this.

According to our most recent polling on this question, a plurality of Texas voters, 36 percent, think that a woman should be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice. But more important for the context of SB 5 and the arguments being levied against it for drastically decreasing access, only 16 percent of respondents believe that abortion should never be permitted — a number consistent with national findings using the same question wording.

Taken together, these polling numbers convey broad support for some specific restrictions focusing on procedures. We don’t find more than token support for drastically reducing or eliminating access. In June 2013, 79 percent of Texans indicated that abortion should be available to a woman under varying circumstances. As for Davis’ core constituency, 59 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of liberals think that it should always be legal and available. As for the GOP: 20 percent of female Republicans think that abortion should always be legal, compared with 11 percent of male Republicans. But maybe more important for future electoral fortunes, there exists a 19-point gap among female and male independents regarding the opinion that abortion should always be available, 41 percent to 22 percent; and one of the most supportive groups of all is suburban women, 45 percent of whom think the procedure should always be legal.

Much of the attention this week has been on the short-term effects — Davis’ rising star, the embarrassment of the Senate devolving into chaos, the attempts to frame the whole event as an instance of “mob rule,” the sense of triumph among the activists who helped force the errors on the Senate floor at the crucial moment and so much else that arose from the five-star political theater Tuesday night. These factors notwithstanding, in the near term, the derailing of SB 5 will likely be rendered a pyrrhic victory in the second special session.

In the longer run, the key question is whether the symbolism of Tuesday’s events will have an impact on the state of Republican hegemony in Texas by stirring up a more potent political alternative. Polling numbers show that the anti-SB 5 mobilization expressed attitudes and feelings rooted in a wide swath of public opinion. Whatever one thinks of their manners in the Senate gallery, the orange-shirted guests were a group of engaged Texans echoing the sentiments of many others, as we know from both the UT/TT polling and the viral response on Twitter and other media.

Whether Tuesday’s events mark a watershed or merely another episode in Texas’ colorful political history will depend on whether a meaningful political alternative to the Texas GOP can capitalize on the symbolic significance of Tuesday’s history-making events and their foundation in public opinion on abortion. This may sound a little conventional, but it’s not out of the question that the symbolism of derailing SB 5, however fleeting the victory, might be the kind of old-school political event that contributes to making Texas politics less a Republican bailiwick and more of a battleground.

In other words, don’t forget about what happens here between now and next November, and remember that we should be the ones making an issue out of this. The Republicans are pushing something the people haven’t asked for and don’t particularly want. It’s on us to make them pay for that. Until then, both chambers stand in recess, though the House State Affairs Committee meets this afternoon, with testimony cut off at midnight as noted above. Texas Leftist, Juanita, Texas Vox, Texpatriate, and the Observer have more.

UPDATE: Stace reports from the Houston event last night.

Posted in That's our Lege | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Protest day at the Capitol

I do not expect another Ardmore

Posted on July 2, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

The AusChron tries to get out the Democrats’ strategy for Special Session 2.

When the Texas House convened last last month to pass, on third reading and onto the Senate for final passage, Senate Bill 5, the omnibus abortion regulations bill, Austin Rep. Elliott Naishtat heard several colleagues discussing whether House Dems would be ready to walk out – to break quorum – in order to stop the measure from moving forward.

Among the questions before Democrats as they face today’s start of a second-called special session, with passage of abortion regulations first on Gov. Rick Perry’s to do list, is whether a mid-summer, out-of-state sojourn may be in the cards. “There was talk about it” on the floor last month, he said, “and there will undoubtedly be talk about it again.”

[…]

With the 30-day special-called session only getting under way today, there is plenty of time for Republicans to maneuver to pass the divisive measures – as one Capitol staffer said last week, not even Davis can talk for 30 days. But there remain other strategies to explore, said Austin Democratic Sen. Kirk Watson – though he declined to offer specifics. “I’m not going to get into strategies,” he said, “but we’re not going to give up the fight.”

[…]

Requiring testimony in each chamber may be one way to moderate the legislation’s forward progress, but it is unlikely to do much to halt the ever-forward movement. So, might a mid-summer trip to a nearby state be the way to go? That’s certainly an option, says [Rep. Donna] Howard. Though, realistically, says Naishtat, he isn’t sure that it would work to derail the measure completely. “I don’t see how House or Senate Democrats could break quorum for the amount of time necessary to defeat the bill – it could be as much as three weeks,” he said. “On the other hand, other people doubted that Sen. Wendy Davis could pull off a filibuster. So what I’m saying is, you never know.” Indeed, Naishtat agrees that at this point, every option is on the table. And it would be “foolish,” he said, for Republicans to “underestimate our power, our intelligence, our mastery of the rules, and our commitment to doing everything legal to prevent the passage of … anti-pro-choice bills.”

I’m not privy to the Dems’ thinking, and I certainly wouldn’t dismiss any feasible possibility out of hand, but I have a hard time seeing how a quorum break would be successful. As with the Davis filibuster, all it can do is delay. It can’t prevent any of this awful legislation from passing, because Rick Perry can just keep calling more sessions, which you know he will. The reason why Ardmore was doable in 2003 was that the Dems only needed to be gone for five days. As with the previous special session, the re-redistricting bill came up late, and it was close enough to the deadline for passing bills out of the House for the Senate to take up that they could bug out on Monday and return on Saturday having accomplished their task. Busting quorum now would be like what the Senate Dems tried to do later that summer. As was the case back then, there was no magic day after which you could say you were in the clear. Maybe they’ve though this through and they know what their endgame is, but I have my doubts. It’s asking an awful lot of a lot of people, and I don’t know how practical it is. I hate to be a wet blanket, and I could be wrong about this, but that’s how I see it.

Two more factors to consider. One is that in the aftermath of Ardmore and Albuquerque, there were some rule changes made in each chamber to make future quorum busts more difficult and more punitive to the fleeing party. I don’t remember the details, but I do feel confident that the Rs would be extremely vengeful towards a caucus that skipped town. Two, back in 2003 the Governors of Oklahoma and New Mexico were both Democrats, and thus unwilling to cooperate with the efforts to locate and extradite the Killer Ds. Both Governors are Republicans now, so no such assistance would be in the offing. The only neighboring state now with a Democratic Governor is Arkansas, but I would not want to put my fate in that state’s hands. The nearest state where I’d feel safe, politically speaking at least, is Colorado. Point being, any out of state excursion would need to be done by air, not by bus, which increases the cost, the risk factor, and the likelihood of something going wrong because there’s just too much you can’t control.

Anyway. If it were up to me, I’d do everything I could to drag the proceedings out, while giving the crazier members of the GOP caucus as many opportunities to say something as stupid as Rep. Laubenberg did last session, and I’d lay whatever groundwork I could for litigation to block the law. The name of the game is the 2014 election. Go down fighting, keep everyone engaged, and be ready to pick up where you left off as soon as the session ends. Be sure to read the whole AusChron story, there’s a lot more in there besides quorum breaking.

Posted in That's our Lege | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Redistricting tango continues in San Antonio

Posted on July 2, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

More to the point, the redistricting litigation continues, at least for the time being.

A panel of federal judges denied the state’s request to dismiss the case, though they left open the possibility that they could do that later. And they asked lawyers to file briefs on what should happen next.

Attorneys for parties objecting to the maps want the judges to consider evidence that lawmakers intentionally discriminated when drawing maps in 2011. That finding could be used to subject the state to federal preclearance of any new maps — such as the ones passed by the Legislature and signed last week by Gov. Rick Perry.

The state asked the court to drop the case, because lawmakers passed new maps and because the U.S. Supreme Court released Texas and other jurisdictions from a requirement to get federal preclearance on any changes in their election law.

The plaintiffs hope to “bail-in” the state through another provision that requires preclearance for states that have recently exhibited intentional discrimination in their voting laws. They say Texas did so in 2011 and should require oversight as a result.

The state argues that the findings of intentional discrimination came in a ruling that has been vacated and doesn’t apply.

Both sides were told to write up their arguments by mid-July.

The court also asked the lawyers to say whether the current redistricting litigation should continue, or whether the panel should disband and let any new cases go to a new court. That will also be the subject of legal briefs due later in the month.

Two issues lie in this legal thicket: When will the state’s 2014 primaries be held, and using what maps? The court hasn’t addressed that question yet.

As Texas Redistricting notes, this is about whether Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act is in play here.

As outlined in an earlier piece, section 3 would come into play if the court found that Texas had been intentionally discriminatory in adopting either the 2011 or 2013 maps – or had failed to fix intentional discrimination in the 2013 maps.

Although there was discussion about whether that could be done in the context of legal challenges to the 2013 maps, African-American and Hispanic plaintiff groups urged the court to first rule on the 2011 maps, saying that the record on the 2011 maps was substantially complete.

They also said this would allow the 2013 maps to be submitted for preclearance if the court determined that the 2011 maps had been enacted with discriminatory intent.

To start the process, the court asked the redistricting plaintiffs to brief section 3 issues by July 22, with responses from the State of Texas due by August 12.

The court also asked that redistricting plaintiffs submit any motions to amend the claims before the court by July 12, with objections by the state due July 19.

The court also gave the parties until July 22 to submit any documents from the D.C. preclearance that they thought should be considered in the Texas case. It said, however, that it would hold live evidentiary hearings before ruling, since at least one of the judges – Judge Smith – questioned whether the court rely on the D.C. court’s findings in light of the Supreme Court’s post-Shelby Co. order vacating the preclearance decision.

The court did not say when those hearings would be, but gave the parties a list of dates when the court would not be available. Based on those dates, it looks like the most likely date for further hearings would be mid- and/or late August.

I found all this rather confusing, so I left a comment on Michael Li’s Facebook page asking what happens if the court finds for the plaintiff on Section 3, and what happens if not. Here’s his reply:

It is confusing and even the lawyers were confused at times. If the court bails Texas in to preclearance then the 2013 maps would need to be precleared either by DOJ or the San Antonio court. The state would bear the burden of proof and should have to show both a lack of discriminatory intent and effect (same as under section 5). If it can’t do that, the court would draw remedial maps (the Lege also could act but as a practical matter not given the timing and the need to get any Lege drawn map precleared). If the court (or DOJ) preclears the map then the court then would turn to section 2 and constitutional claims.

Make sense? Remember, Section 5 is still in effect. It’s just that the formula for determining who was subject to Section 5 – that is, Section 4 – was thrown out. Section 3 is an alternate method for requiring preclearance, and the plaintiffs argued that the finding by the DC Court of discriminatory intent and effect in the maps means that Texas should be subject to preclearance again, for these purposes. The state argues that since SCOTUS vacated the ruling in which that determination was made, it’s all moot. Even if that happens, the Section 2 claims may still go forward, although that may require starting over with a new court. We’re in uncharted territory here, and as always I expect whatever the court rules to wind up before SCOTUS again. We’ll know more in August.

Posted in Legal matters | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

What are the odds for Wendy?

Posted on July 1, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

After a week of Democratic energy and exhilaration like we haven’t seen in a long time here thanks to the Wendy Davis filibuster, there are a lot of people who’d like to see Sen. Davis run for Governor. No doubt if she did, she’d make a race out of it, and would have no shortage of energy or fundraising resources. Whether or not she can actually win, however, remains unclear.

Sen. Wendy Davis

Sen. Wendy Davis

In victory and defeat alike, there were jolts of energy unlike any felt by Lone Star Democrats since the GOP took complete control of state government a decade ago.

“Texas Democrats have dug themselves a big hole over the last 20 years,” said Austin Democratic consultant Harold Cook. “In one week, Republicans have done all they can to backfill much of it.”

The high-profile social issues of immigration, abortion and civil rights play right into Democrats’ strategy with their much-publicized “Battleground Texas” comeback plan: Energize minority voters and single women who historically have voted at lower levels than social conservatives, while persuading some swing voters such as younger Anglos and suburban women to abandon the GOP.

[…]

A short-term victory for Texas Democrats: doubtless. But that obscures a more important question: Will these events dramatically hasten the day when deep red Texas is once again a politically competitive state? Or is Democratic talk of a “purple” Texas as soon as 2014 an early-summer fantasy fueled by the euphoria of the past week?

Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson warns Democrats not to be swept away by “Wendy-mania.”

“The events of the past week have certainly amped up the energy in Texas politics, but the changes required to turn Texas purple, let alone blue, will still be a decade or more in coming,” Jillson said.

Indeed, a Houston Chronicle analysis of election data from 2000 to 2012 found that demographic shifts toward an ever-increasing minority population will only take Democrats so far. The study, conducted last November, found that if current demographic and voting trends continue, Texas will become a politically competitive state in 2020 and a true toss-up in 2024.

The study assumes no spike in registration or turnout among Texas Latinos or a shift among minority voters either away from or toward the GOP. It also assumes that independent swing voters will not dramatically shift from their current Republican leanings.

“The Democratic comeback in Texas depends on two things: The will to do it and the resources to do it,” said Glenn Smith, a longtime Democratic consultant and campaign manager for former Gov. Ann Richards. “Demographic changes are not enough. That is a pipe dream. We have to raise the money and do the hard work.”

The Trib had some cold water as well.

Wendy Davis is never going to see a better moment for a statewide run for office, even though the odds of a Democrat winning statewide in Texas could not be worse.

She would almost certainly lose.

There are always more reasons not to run than to run. But she has emerged as the predominant voice on an issue that pits the party in power against the party out of power. She has a sea of orange shirts behind her, and the Republicans are clearly very, very irritated by her presence on the stage. They’re also irritated that their own officeholders are largely responsible for the attention she’s getting.

[…]

Davis would probably be defeated in a statewide race. Opportunity could have picked a better time to knock. A strong party, good political infrastructure and money can cover a lot of candidate flaws. Both parties have won elections in Texas over the decades with standard-bearers possessing no discernable political skills. Likewise, lots of good candidates from both parties have fallen short because they were in the right place at the wrong time.

That might describe Davis. And it’s not clear she has what it takes to run a statewide race.

She is a local candidate suddenly, and perhaps momentarily, stuck in the spotlight.

She has no statewide network, and her political party doesn’t have the kind of infrastructure that parties are supposed to provide to candidates just coming into their own.

Money is a problem, though her ability to raise funds in Texas and, more importantly, from elsewhere in the country, rose tenfold over the last week. She has a hot hand right now and could put some money together.

The Republicans have the governor — if he decides to run again. And they have Attorney General Greg Abbott, who doesn’t have the Perry’s charisma but has that political infrastructure, lots of money ($18 million at the end of the year) and a party behind him that hasn’t lost a statewide election since 1994.

A bettor would have to go with the Republicans.

It’s hard to argue with that. The numbers are what they are. For all the talk about off-year elections being bad for Democrats, in some ways 2014 offers more hope than 2016 would because Republican turnout is lower in off-year elections as well. More to the point, Republican turnout in off-year elections can vary quite a bit. In 2006, top GOP vote-getter Kay Bailey Hutchison received about 58% of George W. Bush’s 2004 vote total; most of her fellow Republicans got a couple points less than that. In 2010, most Republicans on the ticket were at about 67% of John McCain’s 2008 total. Since McCain got about as many votes as Bush did, that was a huge swing for the GOP, from about 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 votes in all. Democrats, on the other hand, have been stuck in the 1.7 million to 1.8 million range for most candidates for three consecutive off-year elections, despite going from 2.8 million votes in 2004 to 3.5 million in 2008 and 3.4 million in 2012. (Bill White in 2010 and John Sharp in 2002 are the only two Dems to top 2 million votes in non-Presidential years since 2002.) Dems went from about 65% of John Kerry’s total vote in 2006 to only 57% of President Obama’s vote total in 2010. Getting up to a GOP 2010 level of the vote in 2014 would boost the base level to about 2.3 million. Still not enough to win, but at least in the same ZIP code. From that base, you can imagine a candidate with crossover appeal, a bit of extra turnout, a mediocre turnout year for the other guys, and maybe a little something else to get over the top. A longshot, but not a no-shot.

Of course, Democrats don’t have much control over the level of Republican turnout. The Rs have a lot less work to do to get to a a good level, and may not have to do anything in particular. I doubt they’ll have the intensity of 2010, but it’s hard to imagine them having the lethargy of 2006. Nobody knows what may happen between now and next year that could affect any of these factors – I mean, as recently as a week ago there was no reason to believe Wendy Davis was about to become a national figure. There’s a ton of national desire to see Davis take the leap, but it can’t be done without some real downside risk. Never mind Davis losing, running for Governor means giving up her Senate seat, which will be an extremely tough hold without her running for it. That’s one reason why I’ve been advocating for the likes of Rodney Ellis, who has a decent amount of cash on hand and isn’t up for election in 2014, and Cecile Richards to announce for Governor. I think either one could capture a lot of the energy Davis has helped create, without putting an incumbent on the line. For that matter, Sen. Leticia Van de Putte drew a four-year term and could run without risk in 2014 as well. She’s got less cash on hand than Ellis, but made herself almost as big a name as Davis did in the chaotic last moments of the filibuster. There are options in 2014 if Davis wants to take the less-risky path. This may be her best moment, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right moment. It’s a tough decision, and I don’t envy her having to make it.

Posted in Election 2014 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

What does the DOMA decision mean for Texas?

Posted on July 1, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Last week, the day after the disappointing SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act, we got a much more heartening ruling on DOMA, declaring it to be unconstitutional. However, not all of DOMA was struck down.

In a landmark Supreme Court decision on Wednesday, justices ruled that Section 3 of the 1996 law, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples, is unconstitutional. As Justice Anthony Kennedy argued, “DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code.”

But other parts of the law itself are still in effect, including Section 2. This part of the law allows states where same-sex marriage is either illegal or unrecognized not to honor the legal unions from other states around the country. Say a same-sex couple gets married in Iowa; their marriage does not have to be recognized in Alabama. This could become an issue if a couple needs to move to a different state.

That includes Texas, of course. The fact that same-sex marriage remains illegal in Texas was noted by the Chronicle:

“Individual states will continue to enforce their laws until challenged, but we see those challenges coming,” said Houston appellate lawyer Allie Levy. “We will have to go state by state, but we might have much better weapons than we had before.”

Local blogger Michael Coppens believes Wednesday’s rulings make the building momentum for full marriage equality unstoppable.

“For Texas, it doesn’t have a huge impact immediately,” said Coppens, who is gay. “We still have a long way to go. Congratulations to California – they’ve got it and we don’t. But fundamentally it turns the tide. I don’t think the national movement for same-sex marriage can be stopped. With the general public becoming more supportive, and now this ruling taking place, you have the foundation for the anti-gay marriage laws we have across the country going away.”

And by the Dallas Morning News.

“Texas still bars couples from same-sex marriage, and this decision doesn’t change that,” said Cary Franklin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office declined to comment on the effect of the rulings.

One Democratic lawmaker, Fort Worth state Rep. Lon Burnam, immediately vowed to reintroduce legislation to legalize same-gender marriages in Texas. The state became the 19th to adopt a constitutional ban of same-sex unions in 2005.

“It’s a perfect opportunity to refile my marriage-equality bill, and that’s the first thing I will do on Monday,” said Burnam, who filed a similar bill in February that died in committee.

The bill cannot advance in the Texas Legislature’s special session unless Gov. Rick Perry, an ardent opponent of same-sex marriage, adds it to the agenda.

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits and, by declining to decide a case from California, effectively allowed same-sex marriages there.

UT’s Franklin said the high court’s rulings may inspire lawsuits, anti-discrimination policies and scrutiny of same-sex marriage bans nationwide.

“People in Texas didn’t immediately gain any rights, but the court issued a decision that talked about the importance of equality for couples,” she said.

RedEquality

I noted Rep. Burnam’s bill, which will not see the light of day in the special session but which is still laudatory, over the weekend. There’s no question that right-thinking legislators need to mount a full assault on Texas’ awful Double Secret Illegal anti-gay marriage amendment, in the 2014 campaigns and in the 2015 legislative session – and beyond, as will be necessary – but as I have said before, the fact that it is in the constitution makes this an extra heavy lift. I continue to believe that the death of this atrocity will come from a courtroom and not the Lege, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying to kill it in the Lege. It’s still the right thing to do, and hey, you never know. Attitudes have shifted so quickly on the national level, I may be wrong about how long it will take to shift sufficiently here to make a legislative fix viable. Nobody would have thought we’d be where we are now after that stupid thing was ratified in 2005.

There is another avenue available to apply pressure on this, and that’s in the cities and school districts. They need to have full, up to date non-discrimination policies, and they need to offer domestic partner benefits, even if they can’t call them “domestic partner benefits”. Make as much of Texas as gay-friendly as possible within the confines of the current law, and get as many people as possible used to the idea that this is the way things are now. The entities that already have such policies are keeping them in the face of hostility from AG Abbott and some small-minded legislators; they could use some company. If that leads to lawsuits from the forces of backwardness, I say bring it. I don’t fear this being fought out in court.

What that means for those of us who support equality is that in addition to supporting like-minded candidates for state office, we need to support them for local offices, too. Where do your Mayors and Council members and school board trustees stand on this? We’re behind the curve here in Houston thanks to a 2001 charter referendum that banned the city from offering domestic partner benefits. We can’t have a charter amendment referendum until either November 2014 or May 2015 (because we passed amendments last November and can’t put any others on a ballot until two calendar years after that date), and it’s time to start working towards that. Mayor Annise Parker has applauded the SCOTUS DOMA ruling – as far as I can tell by looking at their Facebook pages, she is the only one of the four Mayoral candidates to have commented on this. That’s a good start, but she and all other candidates for Houston city offices need to be pushed to take action on undoing the ban on offering domestic partner benefits. HISD Trustee candidates need to be pushed on offering such benefits, too, if only to get the stench of the 2011 election out of everyone’s mouths. The same is true for other cities and other school boards. I mean, the Supreme Court has just unequivocally acknowledged that this kind of discrimination is wrong. What are we waiting for? BOR, CultureMap, and the Trib have more.

UPDATE: Kudos to Texpatriate for getting a statement out of Eric Dick, and trying to get one out of Ben Hall.

Posted in Legal matters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

H-GAC approves Uptown transportation funding

Posted on July 1, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Good.

Houston-area transportation officials approved a plan Friday to use $61.8 million in federal funds to help build bus-only lanes along Post Oak Boulevard in the Uptown area.

[…]

The project, sponsored by the Uptown Management District, widens Post Oak to add two center lanes for buses that will shuttle riders from two Metropolitan Transit Authority transit centers into the bustling Uptown business area. The $177.5 million project is slated to start construction in 2015, said John Breeding, Uptown’s president.

Breeding and other Uptown area business leaders told the Houston-Galveston Area Council’s Transportation Policy Council the project could be a game-changer in terms of how people commute into the area to work and to shop.

“We are convinced it will improve mobility well beyond its neighborhood,” said Jack Drake, president of the Greenspoint District.

See here and here for the background. The plan to install BRT as a (temporary?) replacement for light rail along the Uptown Line has gotten the bulk of the attention, but the addition of HOV lanes is likely the bigger deal. Somewhat strangely to me, Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, who voted No, expressed skepticism about that aspect of the plan.

“I am afraid we are going to look up in 10 years and say, ‘What did we do that for?’ ” Harris County Judge Ed Emmett said.

Emmett, chairman of the transportation council, said the project followed the rules and on paper warranted the funding commitment from local officials.

That doesn’t mean, however, that it’s the right project to solve the Uptown area’s serious traffic problems, said Emmett, expressing doubts that Houston residents would get out of their cars to take a bus to work.

“I think I know Houstonians enough to know they are going to want to drive,” Emmett said.

Unlike downtown, where park-and-ride buses drop commuters off right in front of major buildings, someone leaving an office on Post Oak would have to cross wide grass medians and wait at an outdoor transit stop in the middle of the street.

“When it’s 95 degrees, is anybody going to do that?” Emmett asked.

You hear that “it gets hot in Houston” argument often for why non-car-oriented projects won’t be worth it. It’s true we have hot summers, but that’s only three months out of the year. The rest of the year is great weather for being outside. We’re still talking about a fairly short distance to walk to get from bus to building. I’m sorry, but I don’t see this as a good reason to oppose the plan, especially given how awful traffic around the Galleria is. I think plenty of people would be happy to have an alternative to that.

One argument that I can see is that once you’ve taken a bus into Uptown, you’re stranded when you want to go to lunch. Downtown there are tons of options in easy walking distance – if you drive into downtown to work, depending on how close your garage is to your office, you can likely get to numerous lunch places in the time it would take you to walk to your car. I don’t know what the situation is like Uptown. But that’s where the rest of the plan comes in – the BRT line will help you get around Uptown, perhaps someday connecting to the University line as well. Throw in a future B-Cycle expansion as I’ve been suggesting, and I think you’ve got it mostly covered. Metro and the Uptown District will need to educate businesses and employees about what their commuting options will be in the future, but I’m sure they’ll take care of that. I think this is a good idea and I think it’s going to make a positive difference in the area. What do you think?

Posted in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

If we need more courts, we should ask for more courts

Posted on July 1, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

I’m not sure why there hasn’t been more of a push to deal with this.

Harris County 1910 courthouse

As Harris County’s population continues to swell, more people means more crimes. And that results in more work for the county’s 22 felony courts.

But no court is busier right now than the 209th, which is overseen by Michael McSpadden, Harris County’s most senior felony court judge. He has a docket of pending cases that eclipses all other felony courts locally.

With a caseload of 1,159, McSpadden has 440 more pending cases than his colleagues’ average of 718, according to a report this month by the Harris County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.

Judges and others say the larger the docket, the more every case is slowed down. That means suspects who are lingering in jail and the victims in those cases may wait years for the case to go to trial, plead out or get dismissed.

The correlation between the size of the docket and the quality of justice, however, is a hotly debated question.

[…]

The more than 1,100 cases in his court is a surprising number that even McSpadden says needs to come down.

“This is my 31st year on the bench and when I had one of the better dockets, I was criticized that I might be rushing cases through – putting too much pressure on attorneys to plead cases, which was certainly not true,” McSpadden said last week. “In the past three years, it has built up, and I have no idea why. I don’t think my attorneys are handling cases differently.”

[…]

“The best judge in the criminal courthouse has the highest docket,” said Todd Dupont, president of Houston’s criminal defense lawyer organization. “(McSpadden) doesn’t let fear of the size of his docket dictate the quality of the proceedings, which is where a lot of judges fall short in Harris County.”

Dupont, who practices in front of McSpadden, said the problem in Harris County is that other judges worry too much about docket sizes.

“Historically we have seen judges use that reasoning to encourage people to plead guilty,” Dupont said. “Who cares about the size of the docket? Conversations about dockets are meaningless unless you use it as a tool of oppression, and that’s just mean, and probably illegal.”

[…]

“The bottom line is we haven’t had a new court since 1985, and the filings haven’t slowed down and aren’t going to slow down,” [Presiding Judge Susan] Brown said. She said there is little hope of getting more judges, more courts or more money. “We’re trying to find creative ways to resolve these issues because we’re not going to get any help.”

Although the crime rate has fallen in recent years, the county’s population continues to grow, creating a net increase in criminal cases going through the system.

Since 1985, when Houston’s last criminal district court was created by the Legislature, the number of felony filings has doubled from 22,000 a year to 44,000. Courts that used to see 1,000 cases a year are now scrambling to deal with twice that many.

Well okay then. Maybe there isn’t much hope for getting more judges, but has anyone asked? If the number of felony filings has doubled since the last time there was a new criminal court added, then isn’t that some pretty strong evidence that there’s a need? I recognize that Harris County may not want to have to pay for more judges, but if everyone is so concerned about the quality of justice being dispensed in courtrooms with such overflowing dockets, isn’t it irresponsible not to ask for more judges? Complaining about it isn’t going to change anything. There’s a fundamental disconnect here.

I should note that there is another way to deal with this, one that doesn’t involve a legislative or financial solution, and that’s to file fewer felony cases. Though there was no breakdown of that “22,000 felony filings” number, I’ll bet that a significant fraction of them are drug cases, and that a significant fraction of those are non-violent possession cases, including the infamous “trace cases” that are now being filed as felonies again. As of a few months ago at least, that had not caused an increase in the county jail population, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an effect. We could file fewer such cases as felonies, and we could push the Legislature to reform the laws that make drug possession and other non-violent crimes felonies. Again, though, complaining is not likely to bring about any changes.

Posted in Crime and Punishment | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Weekend link dump for June 30

Posted on June 30, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

A photographic look at Staten Island in the 1980s. Really takes me back, I have to say.

“Scientists are in awe after discovering a Queensland lake that has barely been affected by changes in climate for 7,000 years.”

The NBA teams up with the White House to promote Obamacare.

If Jean-Paul Sartre were an app developer.

Will someone please make this into a Lifetime movie?

Corporations are people, my friend! Yeah, I’ll believe it when Texas puts one on death row.

The periodic table of the Muppets. Kermit is hydrogen.

I’m not a member of The 15 Percent, but a number of my relatives are. If you think about it that way, the number is surely a lot bigger.

Our long national Twinkie nightmare is coming to an end.

The AOL Reader is out. The Digg Reader is out. NetNewsWire now has one. There are still others out there. I’ve been using Feedly. What are you doing to replace Google Reader?

“But the truth stalks us like bad credit.”

The more Paula Deen talks, the worse she sounds.

“They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work”. Or, to put it another way, what Dilbert said.

Turns out the IRS wasn’t just targeting conservative groups, but was actually trying to enforce the law about political activity by non-profits. And the genesis of the scandal was a grossly misleading report from a Bush-appointed Inspector General.

“You’ll probably be surprised to hear that golf, in fact, accounted for surprisingly few lighting deaths, with a total of just 8 fatalities between 2006 and 2012″.

On kids and business travel. I agree, the barrier for the mother to travel is likely to be at the father’s workplace.

All hail Bull Durham.

In addition to everything else, Mariano Rivera is now an honorary member of the Harlem Globetrotters.

“Why has gold been such an abysmal investment, if you can even call it that?”

To seek out new life and new civilizations.

As is so often the case, The Onion speaks the truth.

Remember how Ronald Reagan once said that Latinos are Republicans, they just don’t know it yet? Yeah, not so much anymore.

The top nine moments from this crazy week in the Texas legislature.

The Internet demands that Connie Britton play Wendy Davis in the movie about the filibuster, y’all.

Posted in Blog stuff | Tagged | 1 Comment

Full speed ahead for Parks By You

Posted on June 30, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Excellent.

Houston City Council on Wednesday approved an agreement with the Houston Parks Board to tackle the ambitious trails plan voters approved in a $166 million bond issue last November.

The Bayou Greenways 2020 project fulfills a century-old vision first laid out by urban planner Arthur Comey in 1912, with a $205 million, 160-mile connected networks of citywide trails. As the name implies, the goal is to finish the work in 7 years.

For a sense of where the trails are going, check out this map.

[…]

The Houston Parks Board has committed to raising $105 million to accompany the $100 million from the bond issue (the other $66 million is for other projects), and already has raised $20.3 million. Parks board director Roksan Okan-Vick said bulldozers will start moving in a few months, starting along White Oak Bayou.

“This is a transformational project,” Okan-Vick said. “It will change the way we think about our city and change the way others view and think about our city.”

I can’t wait. Here’s more from the Mayor’s press release.

Mayor Annise Parker, the Houston Parks Board and the Houston Parks and Recreation Department (HPARD) announced the start of the $205 million Bayou Greenways 2020 initiative designed to create a 150-mile greenway system within the city limits. The project is a result of the 2012 proposition B bond election passed this past November with overwhelming voter support (68% voting margin).

“Thank you Houston! Because of your support the Bayou Greenways 2020 project will create a 150-mile system of parks and trails within the city limits on the banks of our bayous,” said Mayor Annise Parker. “This project is truly a partnership project with city, county, nonprofits, businesses and many more interested parties joining together to connect trails and parks. Bayou Greenways 2020 demonstrates our combined commitment to parkland and greenspace that has been shown repeatedly to enhance our quality of life and competitiveness here in Houston. This project truly showcases Houston’s can-do attitude.”

[…]

“This is the largest urban park project in the nation; but, the beauty of it relies on its simplicity,” said Roksan Okan-Vick, Executive Director of the Houston Parks Board. “Our mission is to secure the equitable distribution of parkland for our entire region, and these bayous have no boundaries, connecting neighbor to neighbor, and homes to businesses throughout our area. We are so grateful to be a part of this historic effort by this administration.”

The completion of Bayou Greenways 2020 fulfills a 100-year-old vision presented by urban planner Arthur Comey in 1912. His vision to unite the city with grand greenspaces along the bayous will come into being by creating 150 miles of continuous and accessible parks and trails along the major bayous within the city. Those bayous reflect Houston diversity and crisscross the entire region. They include: Brays Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Greens Bayou, Halls Bayou, Hunting Bayou and White Oak Bayou. In addition, Clear Creek and the San Jacinto River are included in this project. Bayou Greenways 2020 will be completed in multiple phases over seven years (expected to be completed in 2020) and will positively impact every council district.

Today’s agreement also provides for transparency and accountability. All construction plans, trail alignments and design of trails and/or trail related facilities are subject to HPARD approval. All construction contracts are subject to approval by City of Houston Legal and General Services Departments. A reliable long-term maintenance agreement between the City of Houston and the Houston Parks Board is also envisioned, and will establish reliable long term funding sources for ongoing maintenance of the Bayou Greenways 2020 trail system. This agreement will be negotiated between the City of Houston and the Houston Parks Board and presented to City Council for approval no later than December 31, 2013, with implementation set by July 1, 2014. Contractors will comply with MWSBE requirements according to Chapter 15 of City Code.

This document has more details and maps of the project locations.

This is going to be awesome. No city in America has anything quite like this. If you want a sneak peek at the White Oak construction, go here to sign up for a short walking tour of a key part of it on July 20.

Posted in Elsewhere in Houston | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Full speed ahead for Parks By You

Burnam to re-file marriage equality bill for Special Session 2

Posted on June 30, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

From the inbox:

Upon the announcement [Wednesday] of a second special legislative session by Governor Rick Perry, as well as the Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act, State Representative Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) today announced his intention to re-file his Marriage Equality bill from the 83rd regular Legislative Session, HB 1300.

“The Supreme Court found today that the federal government acted to ‘impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages.’ I can assure you the Texas Legislature did the same. As such, it is time to renounce our homophobic state laws and usher in marriage equality in Texas,” said Rep. Burnam.

Governor Perry announced his intention on Wednesday to call a special session to deal with all unfinished business from the first session, including the abortion bill killed by Senator Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth) in her historic filibuster. However, in the first special session, Governor Perry had also added several issues throughout the session.

“I call on Governor Perry to add marriage equality to the special session call,” said Rep. Burnam. “Clearly granting equal rights to all Texans is more urgent than imposing restrictions on women’s health and liberty based on junk science and sham medical research.”

“It is the shame of our state that we continually have to wait for a federal judge to make us do the right thing. It happened with segregated schools, segregated parks and segregated housing. Let’s not let it happen with segregated marriage rights.”

In the 83rd Legislative Session, Rep. Burnam had introduced but had failed to even get a hearing for the bill. The bill is not a constitutional amendment, but rather amends key parts of Texas state law to extend parental, property and other legal rights of marriage to same-sex couples.

Here’s HB1300. This is absolutely the right thing to do, and I salute Rep. Burnam for doing it. That said, Rick Perry will host a fundraiser for Wendy Davis before he’ll put this on the special session agenda. Democrats did a good job introducing marriage equality bills during the regular session, and I expect them to be back in a big way on this in 2015, but regardless of any Supreme Court decisions, this is unfortunately not going to happen now.

Posted in That's our Lege | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Enrolling the uninsured

Posted on June 30, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

This is going to be such a huge job.

Get Covered America

Fresh produce wasn’t the only thing you could find at the Farmers Market [last] Saturday.

Volunteers with the Get Covered America campaign were passing out flyers and letting people know that starting Oct. 1, American citizens can enroll for low-cost health insurance as part of the Affordable Care Act.

“Get Covered America is a national grassroots campaign to educate people about the enrollment opportunities made possible by the affordable health care act,” volunteer Ian Davis said. “The enrollment period will start in October and today marks the 100 day countdown, so we’re doing a national day of action.”

Davis, an organizer with Get Covered Texas, says it’s important Texas is included.

“Texas has the most uninsured of any state in the country, so this is ground zero of really solving the health care problem,” Davis said.

Musician Daniel Smith is someone who doesn’t have health insurance.

“It’s just kind of like, don’t get hurt or sick you know,” Smith said.

Davis says there are plenty of people like Smith who don’t know they’re eligible.

“Over half the folks that are eligible for those benefits are unaware,” he said.

There were kickoff events like this around the country last weekend. BOR was at the Austin event. There was an event in Houston on Saturday the 22nd, right here in the Heights, but the only information I saw about it was an email that same morning. I hope we can do a better job of getting the word out than that. This is the only thing I saw in the Chronicle, so when I say “we”, I mean them, too. They did have a story on the federal push to get people enrolled on Tuesday, so perhaps they’ll be on the case going forward. We’ll see.

The actual enrollment period for the health insurance exchanges begins on October 1, and the race is on to get the word out. Something like 2.6 million Texans may qualify for insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, but they have to know about it and they have to know what to do to get the subsidies and enroll in an insurance plan. This is a massive national undertaking that will be done without the assistance of the state government here, for obvious reasons. One organization that may be helping to promote the exchanges will be the NBA, and I for one look forward to seeing what the Houston Rockets will do as part of that effort. (The NFL, and thus the Houston Texans are also in play.) Let’s hope we hear a little bit more about it between now and then.

Posted in The great state of Texas | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Saturday video break: Proud Mary

Posted on June 29, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Song #13 on the Popdose Top 100 Covers list is “Proud Mary”, originally by Creedence Clearwater Revival and covered by Ike & Tina Turner. Here’s CCR:

Great band, and I love John Fogerty’s voice, even if some of his enunciations are a bit weird. Still, an awesome song that is also in my vocal range. Now here are Ike and Tina:

Man, if you weren’t dancing, or at least grooving, to that, you really ought to verify that you have a pulse. You’ve got to be playing at a very high level to take CCR’s “Proud Mary” to such a different place musically and improve it in the process. All hail Tina Turner.

Posted in Music | Tagged , | Comments Off on Saturday video break: Proud Mary

Time to lace up your Mizunos and head back to the Capitol

Posted on June 29, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Special Session 2 starts today. If you can be there to watch the proceedings in the Legislature, that would be great.

RSVP here, and while you’re at it, give a Like to the Stand With Texas Women Facebook page. The rally on the Capitol steps will be Monday, July 1, from 12 to 2 PM. Let’s have a big crowd, but please remember that it will be hot. Dress accordingly, wear sunscreen and a hat, and drink lots of water. No heatstroke, please. As Stace notes, there’s also an event in Houston on Monday evening, so there’s something you can do even if you can’t make it to Austin.

What happened last week was huge, but what happens next is critical. Make your voice heard. Juanita has more.

Posted in That's our Lege | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Commissioners Court approves HCSCC Astrodome plan for further review

Posted on June 29, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

I noted this briefly in an update to my interview with Willie Loston, but on Tuesday Harris County Commissioners Court unanimously approved the proposal by the Harris County Sports & Convention Corporation to redevelop the Astrodome for further study.

Commissioners did not comment on the proposal before or after the vote, but County Judge Ed Emmett said the court wanted to refer it to budget staff “to analyze what exactly the financial impact is, because if there is a bond, there will be a tax and everybody needs to understand that, but the level of that tax right now is still undetermined.”

County Budget Chief Bill Jackson said he and his staff will review the cost of building, maintaining and operating the facility, and then look at ways to pay for it, focusing on the “non-public property tax items first” in an effort to lessen the amount of any bond referendum sent to voters.

Court members said Tuesday they would like to see a plan on the ballot this November so the 30-month project could be completed in time for the 2017 Super Bowl at Reliant Stadium.

Jackson said options to be examined include naming rights and selling salvaged parts, including the nearly 60,000 seats.

When Astroworld was dismantled about eight years ago, Jackson noted, “people were paying ridiculous amounts for things that they remembered as kids.”

“I just feel that people, if they do take parts and pieces out of this thing, people will be willing to spend something for that,” he said.

The review should be complete by Aug. 1, Jackson said.

That would cut it close for the deadline to place an item on the November 6 ballot, but there would be sufficient time to do so. The Infrastructure Office and the County Attorney’s office were also asked to review the plan. This is basically what Loston said would happen in the interview. Hair Balls elaborates.

The court voted unanimously to send the plan to the county budget office, the county attorney and the public infrastructure department. The budget office will tell them how much this plan will actually cost tax payers, and the county attorney’s office will tell them how quickly everything needs to move to get this on the November ballot, if that’s possible. It’s going to the infrastructure department because Pct. 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle asked that it be sent to that department as well. Now the court has to see what the budget office, the county attorney and the public infrastructure department all have to say before looking at the issue again.

Back in April, the HCSCC said tearing the Dome down would become an option again if whatever option they ended up recommending (which ended up being this one) failed to get approved. Now, [HCSCC Chair Edgardo] Colon notes that if the commissioners decided not to vote for the plan or voters decided against it, demolishing the building would be one of the options, but they would still be looking to the court for guidance and other options for what to do with the building.

Once things really get rolling, Colon says his organization will move in and start working to get the public informed on this project enough to vote on it if and when it gets on the ballot.

Precinct 4 Commissioner Jack Cagle said he wanted to see a variety of bond referenda on the ballot, according to the Chron story, including a demolition option. I’m not exactly sure how that would work, though he is correct to note that just because a bond referendum is approved that doesn’t mean the money has to be borrowed and spent. Still, if we’re going to ask the people to vote we ought to be giving them the final say, not just narrowing the choices for a final determination by Commissioners Court. Let’s have one up-or-down item on the HCSCC proposal, and if it fails then Commissioners Court can then decide what the next move is.

In the meantime, County Judge Ed Emmett met with the Chron editorial board to discuss the plan and its status. Two items of interest from their talk. Item one:

In a somewhat heated meeting with the Houston Chronicle editorial board on Wednesday, Harris County Judge Ed Emmett took credit for the timeline the Harris County Sports and Convention Corp. set in April for deciding what to do with the decaying Reliant Astrodome, describing it as an attempt to put an end to a nonstop stream of private reuse ideas that don’t have financial backing — and to force a decision on what to do with the vacant stadium.

“The private groups kept coming and coming and coming and I started chewing on… the Sports and Convention Corp. to set a deadline,” Emmett, who took office in 2007, explained. “This was more a deadline to make sure that those who kept talking actually came to some end and namely that they either had money or they didn’t have money or they had a definite plan or they didn’t have a definite plan.”

Rebuking a Chronicle editorial last Thursday that described the process as rushed and set up to end in demolition, Emmett went on to say that “there’s no plot that I’m aware of.”

“It wasn’t anything to try to short circuit the system,” he said. “In fact, it was trying to put an end to a system that had been going on for years.”

See here for my previous comments on that Chron editorial. As I said earlier, it’s fair to question whether the HCSCC plan will have the full political backing of Commissioners Court, which could be a difference maker in getting a referendum to fund the proposal passed. Judge Emmett appears to be on board, but as we know, the Court is composed of individuals with their own agendas. If one or more Commissioners actively works to undermine the referendum, or otherwise works towards a goal of demolition, people will have a right to be upset about how the process has played out. It’s too early to know how this will play out.

Point two:

Emmett said he “wasn’t keen on the idea” of having the vote this year because there won’t be any other county issues on the November ballot, other than state constitutional amendments. But he said it has to happen if the project is to be done in time for the 2017 Super Bowl at Reliant Stadium. It also has the greatest chance of passing, he said.

“If we don’t have it this year it won’t be ready in time for the Final Four and the Super Bowl and I hate to miss those opportunities,” Emmett said. “And the political reality is I think it’s more likely to pass when you don’t have the whole county voting because I think the people in the city of Houston probably have more of an attachment to the dome than people out of the suburbs. It’s just a guess; We haven’t polled that yet.”

Having a vote this year is the right thing to do. This has gone on long enough, and having the 2017 Super Bowl as a deadline for completing the necessary work ought to keep everyone’s eyes on the ball. The bit about whether there’s a difference of opinion between the city and the ‘burbs is fascinating, and I for one would love to see some polling data on it. I hope whoever does the eventual Chronicle/KHOU poll makes a note of that. Anyone want to critique Judge Emmett’s hypothesis?

Posted in Local politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Clock strikes midnight for North Forest

Posted on June 29, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

This was a tough blow for NFISD.

North Forest school officials lost one of their final court battles Wednesday, making the district’s state-ordered merger into HISD five days from now increasingly likely.

U.S. District Judge David Hittner rejected the last-ditch claims by North Forest that the school system’s takeover by the Houston Independent School District would violate the rights of minority voters under federal law.

North Forest has two more long shots to halt the shut down of the school district, with motions in state appellate court and the Texas Supreme Court.

State Education Commissioner Michael Williams has expressed complete confidence that his order to shut down North Forest after decades of academic struggles and financial problems would stick. He issued a statement this week saying he had no doubt the merger with HISD would happen Monday after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling about voting rights eliminated a remaining hurdle.

In his order, Hittner noted the “well-documented educational struggles” in North Forest and said that granting a temporary restraining order to halt the annexation was not in the best interest of students.

“In short,” he wrote, “the affected children, the educators, and the state would be severely harmed by the issuance of a TRO.”

Williams’ reference to the SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act drew a rebuke from Clay Robison of the TSTA, but he’s right that Justice Department engagement in the North Forest closure was a potential obstacle, and now it’s not any more. Chris Tritico, the attorney representing the NFISD school board members, said in this story that their litigation can continue even after the district and its Board of Trustees is dissolved, since they sued as private citizens as well. However, on Friday the State Supreme Court declined to hear their case, and Tritico conceded defeat. On Monday, the annexation officially begins. Hair Balls has more.

Posted in School days | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clock strikes midnight for North Forest

One thing Wal-Mart could be good for

Posted on June 29, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

They could wreak havoc on payday lenders.

Raj Date says that with modern data analysis banks could offer payday loans on much less extortionate terms. Felix Salmon retorts that banks don’t actually want to do business with poor people unless they can scrape them for high fees. Otherwise the costs of dealing with the accounts exceeds the profits to be made by having them as customers.

The solution to this problem, I think, would be for banking services to be performed by a firm that already has low-income clients and would have an interest in increasing its level of engagement with them even if the payday lending operation wasn’t profitable per se. In a word, you need Wal-Mart. A few years back, Wal-Mart started offering check-cashing services that were much cheaper than the prices charged by stand-alone check-cashing places. And it’s no surprise that this worked. If your whole business is cashing checks, then your check-cashing fees have to be high. But if check cashing is basically just another way to get people in the door of your store, then it makes business sense to offer attractive terms. Wal-Mart once applied for a banking license and was turned down so it can’t lend money. But if low-end retail chains were allowed to get bank charters, you could imagine one or more of them wanting to offer discount payday lending services for similar reasons—it’s a great way to get customers in the door at a time when you know they have money to spend.

The embedded link about Wal-Mart in the check cashing business is worth reading. For that and for the payday lending industry, having WalMart come in and crush the existing players with the force of low prices would be a good thing. Frankly, letting Wal-Mart have a banking license, which would immediately give access to basic checking and savings account services for millions of adults that don’t currently have them. That could have a major effect right here in Houston.

The Houston area is now the sixth-most unbanked major metropolitan statistical area in the country, as 11.9 percent, or 264,000 households in the region, do not have access to a bank account, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. About 8.2 percent of U.S. households are unbanked.

It’s also the fifth-most underbanked major metro in the U.S., meaning the 28.4 percent, or 630,000 households, that fall into this category have bank accounts but rely heavily on alternative financial products, such as payday lending.

Even after the city of Houston in 2009 established Bank on Houston, a program to draw the unbanked to bank accounts, the numbers of the city’s unbanked and underbanked have increased. In 2009, when Houston was the seventh-most unbanked metro area in the U.S., 10.5 percent of the city’s households were unbanked and 21.4 percent were underbanked.

“Part of it is the population increase,” Alexander Obregon, special projects coordinator for the city controller’s office and chair of the financial education committee for Bank on Houston. “There aren’t enough service providers out there that can reach all the people who need a financial education. Houston’s population continues to grow, and demand for its safety-net services continues to grow,” outpacing the growth of those services, he said.

Roger Widmeyer, spokesman for the Houston controller’s office, added that the unbanked can be a challenging demographic group to draw to the financial services industry, as many have a generational or cultural distrust of banks.

“Houston is a mecca for skilled labor, and many of these folks get paid in cash, and they prefer it that way,” Widmeyer said. “We’re attracting a lot of new residents who are coming here without a bank.”

I’m willing to bet that if Bank On Houston could partner with Wal-Mart, that would make a major dent in those numbers. Hey, I dislike and distrust Wal-Mart as much as the next liberal do-gooder. No question, Wal-Mart is evil. Compared to the payday lending industry, though, they’re clearly the lesser evil. I’m not particularly sanguine about a legislative fix for payday lending, and while the city of Houston is likely to take action to restrict payday lending here, that can only cover the city. Bigger action than that is needed. I say let WalMart come in and squeeze all the profit out of payday lending. That’s one industry where there’s no downside to lower prices.

Posted in Bidness | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Friday random ten: Going deep

Posted on June 28, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

My inspiration this week comes from John Scalzi:


Name a favorite “deep cut” from a band you like. A “deep cut” meaning a track that was never a single or radio/video hit and wouldn’t generally be known to people who are not already huge fans of that particular band.

His commenters left a ton of deep cut suggestions. Here are ten that I have:

1. Mr. Blue Sky – Parthenon Huxley (org. ELO)
2. Your Racist Friend – They Might Be Giants
3. Helpless Automaton – Men At Work
4. Canary In A Coalmine – The Police
5. Summer, Highland Falls – Billy Joel
6. Madman Across The Water – Bruce Hornsby (org. Elton John)
7. The Roof Is Leaking – Phil Collins
8. The Sweetest Thing – U2
9. Nightswimming – You Say Party! We Say Die! (org. REM)
10. Theo & Weird Henry – John Mellencamp

As usual, I have a mix of cover versions in there. These are all really good songs, too, so kudos to Scalzi’s readers for having exemplary taste. I myself might suggest “Candy’s Room” by Bruce Springsteen, “Cruise” by David Gilmour, and “Up The Junction” by Squeeze – actually, the acoustic/countrified version that Chris Difford does on “From New Cross to Nashville” is even better. What deep cuts would you add to this list?

Posted in Music | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Friday random ten: Going deep

What the future may hold for Wendy Davis

Posted on June 28, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Patricia Kilday Hart has her take on the Wendy Davis phenomenon, including the reaction of some Republicans to it.

Sen. Wendy Davis

Sen. Wendy Davis

For both proponents and opponents of SB 5, the legislation that would have banned abortions past 20 weeks of pregnancy and required costly upgrades to abortion facilities, one point was irrefutable: The filibuster created a new star for Texas Democrats.

“She’s the real deal. Humble beginnings … and she’s wickedly smart. The fact is, she does her best against the greatest odds,” said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio. “Her future is whatever she wants it to be.” Agreed Sen. Rodney Ellis: “The sky is the limit.”

Republican campaign consultant Matt Mackowiak said Republican strategic errors carried a real cost for his party. “We now have a Wendy Davis problem,” he acknowledged. “We created an unbelievable opportunity to launch a first-tier Democrat.”

Still, given Davis’ liberal record and the state’s solid Republican bent, he said those who think a Democratic candidate can defeat Gov. Rick Perry or Attorney General Greg Abbott in 2014 are delusional. “I don’t think that person exists,” he said.

Sen. Robert Deuell, R-Greenville, a physician who challenged Davis’ position during Tuesday’s filibuster, agreed that better Republican planning could have prevented Davis’ moment in the limelight. He had advocated passing two other pieces of legislation, and adjourning, leaving the abortion bill for a second special session.

He also does not believe that Davis “will ever be governor of Texas.” In fact, she may have difficulty hanging onto her Texas Senate seat, when she runs in 2014 in a non-presidential year,” he said.

“Obama is not on the ticket,” he noted, and her last race was a tough, expensive ordeal.

Glad to know I’m not the only one who thought the Republicans’ strategy on Tuesday was nuts. But let’s knock down this idea that Davis necessarily has a harder time holding onto her State Senate seat next year because it’s not a Presidential year. You can find all the electoral reports for the State Senate map here – look for the RED206 Statewide files. Here are the best Democratic results in SD10 for each election going back to 2002:


Year      Race    R Vote   D Vote   R Pct  D Pct
================================================
2002    Lt Gov    92,324   81,771    53.0   47.0
2004     CCA 6   151,278  111,000    57.7   42.3
2006  Sup Ct 2    79,897   71,640    52.7   47.3
2008  Sup Ct 7   146,726  138,650    50.2   47.4
2010       Gov    90,897   76,920    52.7   44.6
2012  Sup Ct 6   143,816  128,484    50.8   45.4

2008 was less hostile to Dems than other years, but 2012 is basically on par with 2006 and 2002, in terms of margin of victory. 2012 was also a lot more challenging for Davis than 2008 was. John McCain won SD10 in 2008 by 15,000 votes and a 52.1 – 47.1 margin. Mitt Romney won SD10 by 23,000 votes and a 53.3 – 45.4 margin. Despite that, Davis won by 6,500 votes in 2012, which is almost as wide as the 7,000 vote margin she had in 2008, in a friendlier atmosphere. Turnout helped her in 2008, but it’s hard to argue it was much help 2012, as President Obama received 11,000 fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008 in SD10. Davis’ vote total, on the other hand, was nearly identical – 147,832 in 2008, 147,103 in 2012. She was one of only three candidates to win in a district that was not carried by her party’s Presidential candidate – Craig Eiland and Pete Gallego were the other two. She got 4,000 more votes than President Obama did in 2008, and a whopping 15,000 more votes than he did in 2012. That’s pretty strong evidence of her ability to attract crossover votes. Dismiss her if you want, but this is exactly the profile of someone who could be competitive statewide. Plus, as a plaintiff in the redistricting litigation, she offered to settle by accepting the 2012 interim map for the Senate. Maybe there’s some hubris in there, but if she thought she was doomed in 2014, I daresay she’d have continued to fight for more changes to the map. We already know she doesn’t back down from a fight, no matter how long and drawn-out it may be.

Now, this doesn’t mean that she couldn’t lose in 2014. SD10 is still a red-leaning district. If 2014 is a sufficiently GOP year, the hill could become too steep for her. Her elevated profile could work against her as well in that it might make her look more like a partisan Democrat to her Republican supporters, thus making her less attractive to them. It’s usually not that hard to convince people to vote for the home team. I suspect her profile is already pretty high in her district and the voters there already know what team she plays for, after two high-profile Presidential year elections, but crossover appeal can be a fickle thing. On the other hand, if she thinks there may be reason to be concerned about her prospects in SD10, that would serve as incentive to roll the dice on a statewide run. Be careful what you wish for, Sen. Deuell.

I suspect the bravado about her never being Governor masks a certain nervousness, too. Republicans must know that what happened on Tuesday is something they can’t control. Forget the political junkies and their yapping about parliamentary procedures, and forget the Internet junkies and their incessant memes. Focus on the fact that Wendy Davis is getting positive attention from lifestyle columnists and Amazon shoe reviewers, all of which will contribute to making Davis a known and likable figure among the lower-information folks. Don’t underestimate the power of the shoes here to help get the word out. If I hear my mother-in-law mention the name Wendy Davis, I’ll know for sure this is working.

On a more basic level, the fact that Rick Perry felt the need to take a cheap shot at her is mighty telling. As Wayne Slater notes, Perry has just elevated Davis to his political level, implying that she is this fearsome adversary he must fight. Not to mention the fact that he sounded like an arrogant, patronizing jerk – exactly the sort of behavior Kyrie O’Connor was talking about in her column. Maybe no one has ever told Rick Perry this, but the vast majority of women really really don’t like that kind of crap. Remember Sandra Fluke? Or Clayton Williams? During the marathon #StandWithWendy filibuster on Tuesday, I saw a tweet from someone who wondered how long it would be before Rush Limbaugh called Sen. Davis a slut. That hasn’t happened yet, but there are a lot of Rush acolytes out there, and I find it impossible to believe that one of them won’t follow Perry’s insult with something really nasty sooner or later. That sort of thing didn’t work out very well for the GOP in 2012. Davis herself was a beneficiary of that in her 2012 race. It’s fine by me if the GOP wants to go there. I just don’t think they’ve thought it through if they do.

Anyway. Sen. Davis has responded to Perry, and I’m quite certain this is not the end of it. Sen. Davis is leaving the door open to running for Governor in 2014. There’s certainly a lot of interest in her walking through that door. She’d need some stars to align for her to take that risk, but right now at least it looks to me like they just might be moving in that direction.

UPDATE: And when someone says something vile about Sen. Davis, Roy will be there to document it.

UPDATE: Fantasy casting the Wendy Davis biopic. Yeah, this is bigger than you think.

Posted in Election 2014 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

The 2011 maps are officially dead

Posted on June 28, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Rick Perry has signed the redistricting bills, thus making the 2012 interim maps the official state-sanctioned maps and thus dropping any further pursuit of the maps drawn by the 2011 Lege.

On Wednesday, Gov. Rick Perry signed all three redistricting bills that lawmakers sent to him.

With his signature, Perry set the district boundaries for the U.S. House of Representatives, the state Senate and the Texas House, his office confirmed.

Capitol gossipers had been whispering that the governor might try to find a way to shove state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, into a Republican district as punishment for her filibuster that led to the death of a strict abortion measure in the Senate early Wednesday.

But by signing off on the redistricting maps, Perry silenced the rumors that he might veto the new state Senate map and seek to put into place the more Republican-friendly maps passed by the Legislature in 2011.

Texas Redistricting had the early call on that. Speculation had been about more than just the Senate map, and Lord only knows what kind of chaos could have been caused by Perry vetoing the only bills that came out of the special session that had originally been called just to pass those specific bills, but that is now consigned to an alternate universe.

Not wanting to take any chances, the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force had filed a motion asking the court to modify and extend the injunction that had been in place barring the use of the 2011 maps. That’s moot now, so the battle shifts back to the formerly-interim maps and the argument over what if anything the San Antonio court needs to do with them given the DC court ruling from 2012 – you know, the one that found evidence of discriminatory intent in the maps – and the SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act. The last San Antonio court hearing was on May 29, and there’s a status conference on Monday, July 1, but it’s not clear when the next hearing will be. So stay patient, there’s still a lot of this game left to be played.

Posted in Legal matters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Patrick is in for Lite Gov

Posted on June 28, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

And then there were three challengers to David Dewhurst.

Sen. Dan Patrick

Citing the need for “authentic conservative leadership” in Texas, state Sen. Dan Patrick announced on Thursday that he would run for lieutenant governor against incumbent David Dewhurst.

“Today begins roughly 18 months of hard work,” said Patrick, a Houston Republican who was joined by his wife at the news conference. “I think the people in Texas sense that it is a time for change. 2014 is going to be a change election.”

Patrick came out swinging against current GOP leadership, placing the blame at their feet for the failure to pass omnibus abortion legislation during the recently ended special session. Armed with a list of endorsements from county party officials affiliated with Tea Party groups and the results of a recent internal poll, Patrick also emphasized his widespread support in the Houston area.

“We are going to win Harris County. We are going to win Montgomery County,” he said.

Fort Worth Democrat Wendy Davis’ Tuesday filibuster of an abortion bill, which Patrick cited as an example of why voters should put someone new in office, was a backdrop to many of his comments.

“It was pretty clear to the world who was watching that it happened because of a lack of leadership,” said Patrick. “We allowed someone to stand on the floor for 12 hours and give one side of the story.”

Yes, Wendy Davis is officially Public Enemy #1 to the Texas GOP. There’s video of Patrick’s announcement here if you’re into that sort of thing. Patrick drew a short term at the start of the session, so he will be abandoning his Senate seat in order to run for Lite Gov. Former Harris County Tax Assessor Paul Bettencourt has already announced his candidacy to succeed Patrick. I am confident there will be others joining him.

There was a time when the thought of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick made me nervous. That time was back when Dewhurst could still pass as something resembling a serious public official that cared about getting things done rather than advancing ideological interests first. Now that Dewhurst has completed his transition to an angry, pratfalling clown, it’s hard to see what the difference would be. Patrick’s antipathy for the two thirds rule was menacing once, but now that the two thirds rule gets jettisoned whenever it’s convenient, again I ask what exactly there is at risk. (Burka is more alarmed about this.) Patrick could hardly make worse rulings on points of order than Dewhurst. Whatever it was I was worried about before, it’s already here. Patrick may be a more competent Lite Gov than Dewhurst has been, but on the other hand the potential for Real Housewives-style personality conflicts with his former colleagues would at least make it all the more entertaining. So go ahead and run, Danno. You don’t scare me any more.

Posted in Election 2014 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Endorsement watch: The firefighters still don’t like the Mayor

Posted on June 28, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Last week, the Ben Hall campaign teased on its Facebook page that it was about to get a “game-changer” endorsement. This week, that endorsement was announced.

Ben Hall

The Houston Professional Fire Fighters Association announced they will be endorsing Ben Hall in his challenge to incumbent Mayor Annise Parker in this year’s mayoral campaign. This comes well after the Houston Police Officers’ Union endorsed the incumbent mayor back in March and just weeks after a fire that killed more firefighters than any single incident in Houston history.

Despite the fact that both organizations represent those who protect and serve the community, it is not surprising to see the HPOU and the HPFFA supporting different local candidates. It has happened numerous times in the past and usually has to do with how the current regime has supported both organizations. In this case, firefighters clearly believe Mayor Parker has not provided the department with the kind of support they need.

[…]

Hall was a city attorney and he seems to be fairly well organized with a good coalition of backers, but his challenge of the mayor is likely a long shot, as with most incumbents, particularly ones who were in office during an economic upswing. But the endorsement of the firefighters will no doubt help Hall boost his chances.

Perhaps. Generally speaking with endorsements, it’s better to have them than not to have them. However, a “game-changer” to me is one that is unexpected, particularly if the endorser in question had previously supported the other candidate, or otherwise would not have been expected to make this endorsement. That’s not really the case with the firefighters, since they endorsed Fernando Herrera in 2011, and endorsed Gene Locke in 2009. Mayor Parker won both of those elections without their support, so it’s not clear why this time is different. Good for Ben Hall, but it’s not in the same league as winning the endorsement of a previous supporter.

Speaking of which, if one is going to claim the endorsement of someone who had previously supported one’s opponent, it’s best to actually have the endorsement of that person. And when mistakes about endorsements happen, as they sometimes do during campaign, it’s best to correct them quickly lest they remain on the Internet long after they’re first noticed. I’m just saying. Texpatriate has more.

Posted in Election 2013 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Endorsement watch: The firefighters still don’t like the Mayor

Still standing with Wendy

Posted on June 27, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Let me just say that I hope Sen. Wendy Davis slept in yesterday, and did nothing more strenuous than channel surfing and ordering takeout. She’s earned a lazy day, and a lot more than that. And while she (hopefully) took a well-deserved rest, the media spotlight continued to shine on her.

KillTheBill

State Sen. Wendy Davis has held the Texas spotlight before. But Tuesday night’s marathon abortion filibuster propelled her into the national spotlight.

By the time the Senate unsuccessfully forced the vote on some of the nation’s strictest abortion regulations, the 13 hours Davis had spent on her feet challenging the measure had gone viral, drawing praise on social media from President Obama, U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and celebrities like author Judy Blume and actors Lena Dunham and Henry Winkler.

“I have never seen a Texas senator suddenly make world news over the course of 13 hours,” said longtime Democratic consultant Harold Cook. “I’m not sure it was possible before Twitter, honestly. At the start of the day, this was a local story. By the end, it was an international story.”

The attention has prompted even more speculation that the Fort Worth Democrat, who was first elected to the Senate in 2008, could be a future statewide contender — even a gubernatorial candidate. At a minimum, she is poised to have a wider fundraising base if she seeks re-election in 2014.

Republican consultant Matt Mackowiak predicted that her fundraising potential was now “unlimited.”

“If they were doing really smart things — some of the things Ted Cruz‘s campaign did in the last U.S. Senate race — she can raise millions of dollars over the next couple of months online alone,” he said. “I think she may be able to do that anyway.”

[…]

As of late Tuesday night, roughly 200,000 people were watching the proceedings on The Texas Tribune’s YouTube feed. Obama tweeted, “Something special is happening in Austin tonight,” followed by the hashtag “#StandWithWendy.” Even filmmaker Michael Moore and comedian Sarah Silverman got in on the social media action.

Davis started the day with just 1,200 twitter followers; by early Wednesday morning she had more than 46,000.

“Because of the way this worked out, from a procedural and strategic standpoint,” Mackowiak said, “I think the Republican leadership in both chambers of the Legislature unwittingly helped create a national Texas Democratic star.”

Way many reactions from the day after:

PDiddie
Nonsequiteuse
Harold Cook
Greg
BOR
Juanita
Texas Leftist
Hair Balls
Burka
HuffPo
TPM
Kos
Kos again, with a “Draft Wendy?” post
The Fix
Texas Politics
The Slacktivist, who would like there to be singing the next time this happens. I think he’s onto something there.

And pretty much everywhere else on the Internet. Mashable has a nice social media roundup, Buzzfeed did its Buzzfeed-y thing, and the Observer and Trib have excellent slideshows from the chamber. I think the one with the five forlorn (white male) Republican State Reps from the Trib is my favorite. And if you still can’t get enough, here’s the interview I did with Sen. Davis prior to the 2012 election. Oh, and because the Internet clearly demanded it, here’s the Texas Senate Clock’s Twitter feed. You’re welcome.

At the end of the day yesterday, Rick Perry announced Special Session 2, to finish the issues that were killed by Davis’ heroic filibuster. That will give Davis another chance to fight, however unlikely her success will be, and to give David Dewhurst another chance to make a fool of himself. We all knew this was coming – as I said yesterday, I don’t understand why the Rs didn’t cut bait in the evening and have Perry make the announcement then. If this makes you mad, that’s good, as long as you channel it into something productive. If this makes you feel in despair, please snap out of it. If Wendy Davis can stand and talk for 11 hours straight without any kind of break to make sure that her voice and the voices of women across Texas were heard, the least we can do is honor her effort by not moping about this inevitable piece of news.

We need everyone who has paid even cursory attention to this story to hold onto it at least until next November. Midterm elections are all about who shows up. The Republicans showed us the key to winning in 2010. Like they did then, we need a bunch of our every-four-year voters to break that pattern next year and show up to make their voices heard. I’ve said before that if the same number of people who voted for John Kerry in Texas in 2004 turned out in 2014, Democrats would likely sweep the statewide offices. It’s not rocket science. We still need the candidates, but Lord knows we ought to have all the incentive we could need. You want to #StandWithWendy? Make sure everyone you know that needs to vote next year does so. Winning elections is the best revenge. Hair Balls, BOR, and Stace have more.

Posted in The great state of Texas | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Still standing with Wendy

Patrick and Williams keep squabbling

Posted on June 27, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Just as a reminder that Senate Republicans don’t need Democrats to stir up trouble, here’s a flare-up of an earlier kerfuffle. Fire one.

In this corner…

In a recent interview with The Texas Tribune, my colleague, state Sen. Dan Patrick, chairman of the Senate Education Committee, attempted to explain his vote against our no-new-tax balanced state budget that was approved by a supermajority of Republicans.

In part, Patrick, R-Houston, said he opposed the budget due to his concerns about specific public education programs not being funded.

The problem with these comments is that Patrick was directly responsible for these same education programs not being funded. Such revisionism cannot go unchallenged.

As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I appointed Patrick to lead the committee’s public education workgroup. The full committee adopted, in whole, his public education budget recommendations. These recommendations did not include funding for PSAT/SAT/ACT tests. Supplemental pre-K funding of $40 million was included in the adopted recommendations. Conference committee actions reduced the supplemental pre-K funding by $10 million, which was partially offset by an overall increase in public education formula funding.

Additionally, Patrick lamented in his Tribune interview that the new state budget lacked sufficient Career and Technical Education (CTE) funding. But he failed to acknowledge that he offered the Senate floor amendment that eliminated new CTE funding in House Bill 5.

Patrick was the Senate’s lead negotiator on that bill’s conference committee. I also served on the HB 5 conference committee, along with Sens. Robert Duncan, Kel Seliger and Leticia Van de Putte. I specifically told Patrick I would fund eighth-grade CTE (at a cost of $36.1 million) in the budget if he could get the House to agree. Ultimately, he asked me and the other conferees to sign a Conference Committee report which did not include new CTE funding.

[…]

Every member of the Legislature has the right and the duty to vote the interests of their district and their conscience. Patrick consistently supported virtually every decision made during the process of writing the appropriations bill. His unannounced opposition to the final version of Senate Bill 1 was a betrayal of every member of the finance committee who worked in good faith to prepare this budget.

I can only conclude he was looking for an excuse to distance himself from our good work to advance his own political interests.

Fire two.

And in this corner...

Patrick said Friday that he read Williams’ column “with amusement.”

“His attack on me is a classic example of a politician who has forgotten that we represent the people first and foremost,” Patrick said in a statement. “I don’t have to explain my vote to Tommy Williams. I have to explain my vote to the people and I’m happy to do that.”

Patrick described Williams’ arguments in his column as “wrong … or disingenuous at best.” He specifically refuted Williams’ suggestion that Patrick’s vote on the budget was unexpected.

“He had no reason to be surprised by my ‘no’ vote,” Patrick said. “I told him I would be a ‘no’ vote on the budget several days before the bill came to the floor.”

Patrick said Williams’ column is in line with the Senate finance chairman’s recent “attacks” on groups that have criticized the budget, including the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Following the regular session, Williams also tried to strip Patrick of his chairmanship of the education committee.

“His attacks have been personal in nature and offensive,” Patrick said.

See here for the opening salvo. I have two thoughts about this. One, Dan Patrick is probably going to run for Lite Guv – he has a press conference scheduled for today to discuss his 2014 electoral plans – and in a field with David Dewhurst, Todd Staples, and Jerry Patterson he’s got to have a decent chance to make a runoff. Given how many intramural fights he’s gotten into lately, I have to wonder if stuff like this helps him or hurts him with the seething masses of the GOP primary electorate. Being “anti-establishment”, even as a multi-term incumbent, is generally a positive in those races, and that’s been his brand. Do these quarrels help fire up his base or does it drive people who might otherwise agree with him away? I have no idea, but perhaps the reaction to Patrick’s announcement, if it is what we think it might be, will give us a clue.

Two, I wonder if these high-profile personality clashes between people who have little ideological distance between them is a sign of healthy debate for a party that hasn’t been greatly challenged at the state level, or a sign of an impending fall by a longstanding hegemon that may be getting a tad stale because it hasn’t needed for years to talk to voters who don’t participate in their increasingly parochial primary elections? In other words, is this further evidence that the Texas GOP of 2013 looks a lot like the Texas Democrats of 1983? (This is the flip side of Colin Strother’s thesis.) I wasn’t around for much of the Texas Dems’ fall, and I wasn’t paying close attention for the time that I was here, but I do remember how nasty the Jim Mattox/Ann Richards primary of 1990 was, and as I recall it went beyond the usual nastiness of politics. Williams/Patrick is on a smaller scale than that – among other things, they’re not both running for the same office – but it’s still pretty similar. They’re also not the only ones talking to a small subset of the electorate to the exclusion of anyone else – everyone from empty suits like Barry Smitherman and longstanding ideologues like Greg Abbott to people with more balanced records of policy and engagement like Dan Branch and Jerry Patterson are doing it. I know, everyone has a primary to win, but does anyone expect anything different after the nominations are settled? I don’t. Like the Dems of the late 80s and early 90s, the inability to talk to voters who aren’t already on your side – and may not be if someone else manages to get through to them – will come back to bite these guys. The question is when. Harold makes a similar point in discussing the SB5 debate, and Burka has more on Patrick v Williams.

Posted in That's our Lege | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Not so fast on voter ID enforcement

Posted on June 27, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Oops.

Still not Greg Abbott

Top Texas leaders acted without legal authority when they claimed to be moving forward with implementing the state’s controversial voter ID law, a veteran Supreme Court watcher said today.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Secretary of State John Steen both said after the Supreme Court struck down the core of the country’s voting rights law Tuesday that the state would begin enforcing laws requiring photo identification for voters.

But Lyle Denniston, a legal scholar who has covered the Supreme Court for 55 years, said the Texas voter ID law cannot take effect immediately.

“This is one of the dumbest statements I’ve heard from an attorney general in a long time,” Denniston, a contributor to the widely read SCOTUSBlog, said.

The state’s voter ID law — as well as any new redistricting plan — cannot be unilaterally implemented, he said.

“[Abbott] has a judgment against him, and that judgment has to be removed before the law can be enforced,” Denniston said. “He cannot do anything while its pending before the Supreme Court unless he withdraws his own petition, and he’s obviously not going to do that.”

[…]

In wake of [the SCOTUS Voting Rights Act] ruling, several Texas officials pledged enforce the voter ID bill, which a federal court barred the state from enforcing last August.

But Denniston said that case was not immediately settled Tuesday, because the court struck down a section of the law unrelated to the Texas challenge. He called the attorney general “legally ignorant” for thinking he could advance the laws without the court’s ruling.

Well, we already knew that Greg Abbott’s legal skills were lacking. But that sort of thing never stopped a guy like him. I said when the ruling came down that there would be a lawsuit filed against Texas’ voter ID law. I was right.

Congressman Marc Veasey and other African-American and Hispanic plaintiffs filed a lawsuit this morning in federal court in Corpus Christi to bar the enforcement of Texas’ voter ID law.

Last year, a three-judge panel in Washington had declined to preclear the law under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and, as a result, the law could not be enforced.

With yesterday’s Shelby Co. decision, however, the state became free to begin to take the steps that would be necessary for it to be in a legal position to enforce the law.

The new suit alleges, though, that even if section 5 no longer bars enforcement of the law, the law’s discriminatory effect on minority voters violates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that the Texas Legislature enacted the law with a discriminatory purpose in violation of the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution.

The suit also makes a claim that the law violates the Constitution’s 1st amendment by inhibiting free speech and meaningful political association.

The papers asked to the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions barred the law’s enforcement.

Rep. Veasey, of course, was one of the intervenors in both the redistricting and voter ID preclearance lawsuits, so I’m sure he’s well prepared for this. Don’t be surprised if this winds up back before the Supreme Court again some day. Unfair Park has more.

Posted in Legal matters | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Texas blog roundup for the week of June 24

Posted on June 27, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

The Texas Progressive Alliance is once again ready to wish the Legislature a happy summer as far away from Austin as possible as it brings you this week’s roundup.

Continue reading →

Posted in Blog stuff | Tagged , | Comments Off on Texas blog roundup for the week of June 24

Smitherman says he’s in for Attorney General

Posted on June 27, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Whatever.

Barry Smitherman

Texas Railroad Commission Chairman Barry Smitherman is running for the 2014 Republican nomination for Attorney General, he confirmed to the Tribune. Public announcements via social media are planned for Monday.

Smitherman told the Tribune he hopes to continue the “great work” of current Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has yet to declare his own political intentions but is widely believed to have his eye on the Governor’s Mansion.

“In particular,” Smitherman said, “I am focused and interested in continuing to prosecute the federal government, in particular the [Environmental Protection Agency].”

In his capacity as chair of the Railroad Commission, which oversees the state’s oil and gas industry, Smitherman has signed on to multiple lawsuits Abbott has filed against the EPA.

Asked about other priorities, the candidate-to-be highlighted second amendment rights, saying he would fight any federal attempts to ban assault rifles or extended ammo clips, and also immigration. “We have got to do everything within the power of the AG’s office to stop illegal immigration, and I think there are some things to be done there,” he said.

Smitherman grew up near Houston and spent the early part of his career as an investment banker. He later served briefly in the Harris County district attorney’s office before being appointed to the Public Utility Commission, which regulates the electric and telephone industries, in 2004 by Gov. Rick Perry. He was appointed to the Railroad Commission in 2011 and was elected to a full term in 2012.

My aunt worked in the OAG for a number of years before retiring in the late 90s. Do you know what the main function of the AG’s office was back then? Pursuing people who failed to pay child support, and enforcing child support agreements. Pretty quaint, no?

I presume Smitherman’s announcement is predicated on the belief that Greg Abbott is in fact running for Governor. Everyone still thinks that’s what he’s going to do, and while everyone concedes that nobody really knows what Rick Perry is up to or what the decision about his future that he’s supposedly going to make on July 1 will be, the assumption continues to be that the AG’s office will be open. With the announcement of Special Session 2 to begin on July 1, it is possible Perry’s announcement, and thus Abbott’s, may be delayed a bit. Still, barring anything unexpected at this time, we’ll just be trading one grandstanding empty suit for another, and that will be true whether Smitherman wins the GOP nomination or not. I wonder how the child support collections are going these days.

Posted in Election 2014 | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A woman for the Governor’s Mansion

Posted on June 26, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Annie’s List sent out the following email last week:

We’ve had it with Rick Perry. 

First he added insulting anti-choice legislation to the Special Session agenda while ignoring funding for our schools.

Then he did the unthinkable–vetoing the Texas Lilly Ledbetter Bill. 

Perry has it in for Texas women. He’s waging war on our right to equal pay for equal work and access to reproductive healthcare. And we’re not going to take it anymore.

Perry on Notice

Here at Annie’s List, we’re officially putting Rick Perry on notice.

Two years ago, we created the Statewide Opportunity Fund for just this purpose–to set aside a war chest for the first Democratic woman ready to run statewide, and to make a significant impact in her campaign.

Help us elect Perry’s replacement—give to the Statewide Opportunity Fund to put a woman in the Governor’s Mansion.

End Rick Perry’s reign of anti-woman extremism, and defeat his shameful policies for good. 

Give to Annie’s List today and let us know you’re ready to elect the next woman Governor of Texas to send Perry packing.

BOR has a question about that.

That brings to question: can we make that happen in 2014? One has to wonder who Annie’s List has in mind. The most notable female Democrats in Texas are State Senator Wendy Davis and Houston Mayor Annise Parker, but both have indicated that they will not run statewide, focusing on reelection, instead.

Annie’s List’s Communications Director Mitra Salasel told me that due to the organization’s past successes, “we have our eye on a long list of women that would be fantastic contenders.”

Annie’s List’s Statewide Opportunity Fund was created two years ago, and the organization is hoping to build it with this campaign. Salasel told me that any conversation about future Democratic leaders of the state must include our great women leaders. That will certainly be welcomed in the future, and as with a barren ticket for 2014, it would be welcomed with the utmost excitement just right now.

After Sen. Wendy Davis‘ epic filibuster yesterday, I think we know who just about everyone would like to see take a shot at it. As of last report, however, she was planning to run for re-election in SD10 next year. Who knows what happens now, but it might be nice to have a contingency plan in case Sen. Davis decides to stay where she is. As such, I have a question: Has anyone talked to Cecile Richards lately? I don’t know how much of that “long list of women” is just marketing, but unless Sen. Davis changes her mind about running for re-election next year, any such list really ought to begin with Cecile. She’s even right here in Austin. (There is a Draft Wendy movement out there, but you know how these things tend to go.) At this point, just getting someone to say she’s thinking about a run would be a nice boost and a welcome distraction from the seemingly endless list of Republicans who are jockeying for one statewide office or another. Lord knows, there will be no better time to harness all the energy Sen. Davis created than right now. Is there anybody out there? It sure would be good to know.

Posted in Election 2014 | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Filibusted

Posted on June 26, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

I figure this is about how the Republicans think of Sen. Wendy Davis right now:

Well, they probably think a few more things, too, but this is a family blog.

If you didn’t stay up late last night and follow the Wendy Davis filibuster by one means or another – I’m pretty sure the Senate livestream would have gotten higher ratings than half of NBC’s fall lineup – I doubt I can explain to you what happened. Go read the Trib and Observer liveblogs, and check the StadWithWendy Twitter hashtag. I spent more time on Twitter last night than I had in the previous six months combined.

It should be noted that the Senate had other business to attend besides SB5 yesterday.

A proposal from Senate Transportation Chairman Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, that raises nearly $1 billion annually for state road construction and maintenance is within striking distance of heading to Texas voters for approval. Senate Joint Resolution 2 would ask voters to approve amending the state constitution to divert half of the oil and gas severance taxes currently earmarked for the Rainy Day Fund to the State Highway Fund. The measure passed the House Monday after House Transportation Chairman Larry Phillips, R-Sherman, amended it to, in part, address concerns about the Rainy Day Fund’s future. Under the amendment, severance tax revenue would only be diverted from the Rainy Day Fund for roads in years when the fund has a balance of at least one-third of its legislative cap, a figure that varies over time. If senators approve the changes Tuesday, the proposed constitutional amendment will be placed on the November ballot. Nichols has requested that the Senate take up the measure before SB 5, the abortion bill, to ensure that a possible filibuster doesn’t doom both bills.

Sen. Wendy Davis

Sen. Wendy Davis

Despite Sen. Nichols’ request, SB5 was first on the agenda. As such, both it and SB23, the bill dealing with capitol murder sentencing for 17-year-olds, also were snuffed out by the filibuster and the ensuing chaos. Make no mistake, putting them behind SB5 was by design, so that if Rick Perry needed to order double overtime, he could blame the unfinished business on those nefarious Democrats. I’m sure Dan Patrick would be happy to go along with that.

Sen. Davis successfully talked for 11 straight hours, without stopping or even pausing for more than a few seconds, without eating or drinking or relieving herself or leaning on anything, before the farcical third ruling that she was talking about something not germane to SB5. (She was talking about sonograms, which of course have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with abortion and its restrictions in this state.) It’s a massively tall order, and from the beginning it likely would have been for naught, at least if stopping SB5 were the only goal. We all know that the Republicans hold the cards. Rick Perry can order another special session five minutes after this one ends, and without redistricting to clog the calendar a bill like SB5 would pass with plenty of time to spare. But some fights aren’t about whether you win or lose, they’re about whether you fought or rolled over. Say what else you want, Democrats didn’t roll over. Wendy Davis sure as hell didn’t roll over. Oh, and she kept standing after her filibuster was interrupted by that last point of order.

And as with the Killer Ds in 2003, Davis and the Dems have received loads of national attention for their refusal to go quietly. Slate tweeted that however this ends, Wendy Davis is going to be a hero for women around the country. Damn right she will.

Here’s some background on Sen. Davis if you’re not familiar with her already, and here are five contributions you can make to support the cause of reproductive freedom. Everybody was fundraising off of this last night, so I’ll leave it at that.

All other points aside, if you want a reminder of what this is all about, read stina’s very personal story. Sen. Wendy Davis read many stories like that as part of her filibuster, because that’s what this was all about. If you’re not inspired, I don’t know what could inspire you. For the ironic last word, see Texas Redistricting.

UPDATE: The final verdict after the chaos died down is that SB5 did not pass because it was not voted on until after midnight, so by the state Constitution it could not have been voted on and thus cannot be enrolled. Nice to know that at least one rule was still in effect for the Senate.

I really have to wonder what Dewhurst et al were thinking. Everyone knew they were ultimately going to win – it was just a matter of how long it took and how they got there. Imagine if at 6 PM or so, after Davis had been talking for seven hours, instead of trying to stop her via ridiculous points of order, they simply announced that SB5 had been withdrawn, brought the other measures to a vote, and adjourned. Then, while everyone who had been Standing With Wendy began to celebrate, Rick Perry announced that Special Session #2 would begin tomorrow, and abortion restrictions would be the only agenda item. Sure, that would take another week or so to get done, but it would have avoided last night’s clusterfsck, kept Davis from becoming a national icon (while also preventing Sen.s Watson and Van de Putte from raising their profiles as well), and completely crushed the energy and spirit of Davis’ supporters. Now they have to have a second session anyway, and the Republican leadership looks like a Keystone Kops tribute band. Tell me that wouldn’t have been a vastly better outcome for them. Texpatriate, BOR, and Wonkblog have more.

Posted in That's our Lege | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

RIP, Section 5

Posted on June 26, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

By now you are well aware that SCOTUS has dealt a blow to the Voting Rights Act. They actually left Section 5, which is what requires certain parts of the country (including Texas) to get preclearance on voting-related changes, intact, but instead ruled that Section 4, which defined who was under the purview of Section 5, was unconstitutional. While Congress could update the VRA to fix this, I think we all know that ain’t gonna happen with the House under GOP control and the Republicans going full-bore on a white voter strategy. As such, the practical effect is that Section 5 is dead, or at least in a long-term coma.

There’s a ton of coverage out there – Greg has a good link roundup – and there’s not much I can say about the overall implications of this that someone else hasn’t said already. I want to focus on the Texas effects, and for that we turn to Texas Redistricting, who covers two of the three things I want to focus on.

Redistricting

The Texas Legislature completed the process this weekend of adopting the 2012 interim maps as permanent maps (with just the most minor of changes to the state house map). Those bills now are on Gov. Perry’s desk, awaiting signature.

On the other hand, right now, there is no longer any preclearance bar, and the maps passed by the Texas Legislature back in 2011 are technically legally operative (Plan C185, Plan S148, Plan H283).

Governor Perry now has to decide what to do next.

In some Republican quarters, there conceivably could be a call for return to those maps.

At the same time, if the state’s goal is to minimize the risk of litigation and the possibility of yet another delayed primary, moving forward with the interim maps is the state’s best hope of doing so – short of a full settlement with minority groups.

That’s because the interim maps incorporated changes based, in part, on what the San Antonio court found were non-section 5 problems with the maps (e.g., fracturing of non-Anglo communities in Dallas and Tarrant counties addressed through the creation of CD-33).

But internal party politics can be unpredictable, and it remains to be seen how things play out.

Regardless, whatever the maps end up being, they will head back to the San Antonio court which, over the next few weeks (months) will decide what additional changes need to be made to the maps to fully address constitutional and section 2 claims, including claims of intentional discrimination.

If the court cannot complete the process by early September (or end of September at the very latest), it may need to put another set of interim maps in place to allow the 2014 election cycle to go forward with minimal disruption.

Voter ID

The situation on the voter ID front is a bit less convoluted.

Texas’ voter ID law now can be legally implemented.

To be sure, the Department of Public Safety and election officials will have to take steps to be implement the law, but it is very possible those steps can be completed in time for the law to be in place for municipal and constitutional amendment elections in November 2013. If not, the law will almost certainly be fully operative by the 2014 Texas primary in March.

Don’t count on the litigation to be over, however. It is possible that groups opposing the law could bring a suit to enjoin enforcement of the law on section 2 or constitutional grounds. To get an injunction, though, they would have to meet the high standard for injunctive relief (irreparable harm, substantial likelihood of success on the merits, etc.)

I’d say it’s a lead pipe cinch that a lawsuit to block or overturn Texas’ voter ID law will be filed. It was far more restrictive than many other such laws, some of which were struck down in the courts on non-Section 5 grounds last year. The preclearance lawsuit also established that there was discriminatory intent in the law, which ought to help the eventual plaintiffs’ case. AG Greg Abbott has already announced that the law will go into effect “immediately”, so I’d say it’s just a matter of time before that lawsuit gets filed. For sure, the first goal will be to get an injunction against enforcing the law before this November’s election. In the meantime, DPS will provide free voter ID cards for people who don’t have drivers’ licenses, assuming they can get to a DPS office and can scrounge up a copy of their birth certificate or concealed handgun license. While you ponder that, go sign the petition in favor of making voting a right and not just a privilege that can be taken away by legislative or judicial whim.

As for redistricting, this goes back to my original puzzlement about Abbott pushing for the interim maps to be legislatively ratified. Everyone was betting all along that Section 5 was doomed, so why give up the maximalist strategy for the maps? From a timing perspective, this could hardly be worse for the Texas GOP. They went through all this trouble to get these maps passed, are they possibly going to say “oh, never mind” and go back to pushing for what they passed in 2011? I kind of doubt that they will – as Texas Redistricting noted, the interim maps were a stab at addressing Section 2 problems, not Section 5 issues – but you have to wonder what might have happened if this decision had been in the first batch, before all the bills were voted on. And as always, you never know what Rick Perry will do.

The third point I wanted to touch on was addressed by K12 Zone.

One of the few remaining hurdles the state faces in shutting down the North Forest school district appears to have been removed with the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a key part of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday.

Houston attorney Chad Dunn, who specializes in voting rights, said the court’s 5-4 ruling means that the Texas Education Agency no longer needs to get pre-clearance from the U.S. Justice Department to dissolve North Forest and annex it into the Houston Independent School District on Monday.

“Now they can move forward with annexation unless or until a judge enjoins it,” said Dunn, who was in the Washington, D.C., courtroom when the ruling was issued Tuesday.

There is still litigation ongoing, plus a new motion filed with the State Supreme Court to hold things off. But the Justice Department involvement in the annexation was a wild card that is now off the table. The odds of North Forest going away on Monday just got a little better. PDiddie, Daily Kos, Wonkblog, Texpatriate, Political Animal, the Observer, and the Trib have more.

UPDATE: One more great link roundup from Slactivist.

Posted in Legal matters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

HISD budgets for teacher pay raise and more Apollo

Posted on June 26, 2013 by Charles Kuffner

Whether that will mean a tax hike, and if so how much, remains undetermined.

Houston ISD employees will see a 2 percent pay raise and many schools will receive more money to help struggling students under the budget that trustees approved on a 6-3 vote Monday.

Left unsettled was whether property owners will face an increase in the tax rate next year. The school board won’t adopt the rate until October.

The district’s financial chief, Ken Huewitt, said after the board meeting that the budget will require a 4-cent increase in the tax rate unless circumstances change. Property values may rise more than expected, for example, or the board could agree to cut programs or dip into savings.

“We’re talking 4 cents if nothing changes,” Huewitt said.

[…]

Trustees Juliet Stipeche and Mike Lunceford, who voted against the budget, expressed concerns about the effectiveness of Grier’s reform program called Apollo. The spending plan continues the program at 20 schools while giving another 126 campuses with low test scores extra money to spend on tutoring or other efforts to boost achievement.

Board president Anna Eastman, who also opposed the budget, said she disagreed with distributing money based on overall school results rather than tying funds to needy students at any campus.

See here for the background. There won’t need to be an increase to cover the construction bonds that were issued last year, thanks to rising property values, so any increase will be driven by these items. The pay raise was a must – among other things, some nearby school districts have bumped their teachers’ pay, so HISD needed to keep up or risk losing talent. Sure is nice when a job market operates like that, isn’t it? As for Apollo, it remains controversial. There’s a lot more one can say about it, but that about sums it up.

Posted in School days | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment