Federal complaint filed over TEA takeover

We’ll see if it can have an effect.

The Greater Houston Coalition for Justice this week filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education alleging that Texas is discriminating against Houston schoolchildren by taking over the majority-minority school district.

Johnny Mata, presiding officer for the coalition, outlined the allegations in a Wednesday letter addressed to U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.

The coalition filed the complaint on behalf of the Houston Independent School District and against the state of Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott, Education Commissioner Mike Morath and the Texas Education Agency, according to a copy of the letter shared with the Chronicle.

Mata said he believes the TEA is violating a federal civil rights law by taking control of HISD. The contentious takeover has sparked outrage and pushback in recent days among teachers, parents and community advocates who say the move is a political attempt to destroy public education. 

“They’re asking for a fight,” Mata said about state leaders. “They’re playing games, they’re playing politics, they’re catering to their base, and that’s unconscionable.”

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin. This civil rights law and others extend to all state education agencies, schools and universities, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Anyone may file a complaint with the federal education department’s Office for Civil Rights, which enforces federal civil rights laws in educational programs or activities that receive federal funding, according to the government website.

[…]

HISD may request an administrative review by the State Office of Administrative Hearings by March 30, according to the commissioner.

Mata, who is not a lawyer, said he disagrees with the state interpretation of the takeover law.

“State law is superceded by federal law and they cannot and should not discriminate against anyone,” he said.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has said she is also seeking federal intervention in the takeover by speaking with the Biden administration and other members of Congress.

A spokesperson for the federal education department confirmed that it has been in touch with Lee’s office.

“We cannot prejudge the effect of state and local decisions that have not yet been implemented,” the spokesperson said. “At the U.S. Department of Education, our most important focus is to ensure all students receive high-quality education. We always value and encourage community input in education decisions, and every school district should ensure that community rights are respected.”

See here for the background. I don’t know what the likelihood of federal action is, nor do I know what kind of timeline they might be on, or what procedural steps there may be along the way. I do feel confident that if the feds step in that the state would file its own complaint in federal court, and who knows what happens from there. It’s a lot, at least potentially. Or maybe it’s nothing, if the feds decline to act or decide they don’t have the authority. Like I said, who knows? It’s not boring, we know that much.

Posted in School days | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Federal complaint filed over TEA takeover

Uvalde families ask to be added to the public information lawsuit against DPS

A direct response to the Uvalde County DA and her questionable claims.

Some Uvalde families of victims who were killed or injured during the massacre at Robb Elementary School last year have asked a judge to add them as plaintiffs to a lawsuit against the Texas Department of Public Safety to argue that public records related to the shooting be released.

Numerous news organizations, including The Texas Tribune and ProPublica, are suing DPS for records that could provide a more complete picture of law enforcement’s response to the shooting, which left 19 students and two teachers dead in the border community.

Thomas J. Henry and Robert Wilson, the lawyers for the families of a teacher and a student killed, and other injured children, wrote in a court document filed in the case this week asking to be part of the lawsuit because they have the same interest as the news organizations suing.

“The reasons given for the withholding of the investigation or finding of the Texas Rangers and the Texas Department of Public Safety are without merit and unreasonable,” the lawyers wrote. The families “as victims of the tragedy, have a compelling need for the information that will override the need to keep the information withheld.”

[…]

Last week, [Uvalde County DA Christine] Mitchell’s office claimed in a court affidavit that the families of every child who was killed shared her view of withholding the investigative report.

“All of the families of the deceased children have stated to District Attorney Mitchell that they do not want the investigation of the Texas Rangers released until she has had ample time to review the case and present it to an Uvalde grand jury, if appropriate,” her office wrote.

But the families’ attorneys said they do want the report released.

“These Uvalde families fundamentally deserve the opportunity to gain the most complete factual picture possible of what happened to their children,” wrote Brent Ryan Walker, one of the attorneys who represents the parents of 16 deceased children and one who survived, in a court affidavit filed in the lawsuit.

See here for the previous update. As I said then, the clearest takeaway here is that one should be very reluctant to publicly lie about things that can be easily fact-checked. I mean, okay, the entire Wingnut Cinematic Universe contradicts that thesis, but we’re in the context of legal filings, and grieving parents who will surely have long memories. I have hope this will matter on both fronts.

Posted in Legal matters | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Uvalde families ask to be added to the public information lawsuit against DPS

More World Cup events on tap for 2026

Cool.

The 2026 World Cup soccer tournament is expanding by 24 games, and Houston is prepared to handle any added games.

FIFA voted Tuesday for a change in format to the 48-team event by adding games. The total of 104 matches is 40 more than were played in the 2022 World Cup in Qatar with 32 teams. The 2026 tournament already had planned to increase the field to 48.

“Houston is flexible,” said Janis Burke, the CEO of the Harris County Houston Sports Authority.

Games will be played at NRG Stadium, but FIFA had not previously released information on how games would be divided among the 16 host cities in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Houston had been expecting to host as many as five or six matches in the previous format and could likely handle as many as eight.

“We welcome as many games as we can,” said Chris Canetti, president of the Houston World Cup committee. “We know nothing is guaranteed.”

The Houston organizers have a time window with NRG already under contract that would handle any potential games.

The extra games, which would come in the group stage, would be played within the tournament’s traditional June-July calendar.

See here for the background. There will now be 12 groups of four teams, up from the eight groups of four now, with a 32-team knockout tournament from there. All I can say is bring it on. I’m ready to go buy some tickets now.

Posted in Other sports | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on More World Cup events on tap for 2026

Asking the feds to stop the TEA takeover

Can’t hurt to ask.

U.S. Rep Sheila Jackson Lee said Thursday she is seeking federal government intervention to halt the Texas Education Agency’s takeover of the Houston Independent School District.

Jackson Lee said she has been in contact with the White House frequently over the past years and is now speaking to President Joe Biden’s assistant secretary and the U.S. Office of Civil Rights

“I truly believe that this is a clearly defined matter of discrimination,” Jackson Lee said, adding that other districts have faired similarly to HISD but are not facing takeovers.

Wheatley High School, which received failing grades from the TEA for seven consecutive years, is at the center of the debate over the HISD takeover. While the TEA takeover remained in legal limbo for over three years due to a lawsuit from the district, Wheatley High School has since earned a C grade.

The TEA has said the performance of Wheatley High School is not the only reason for its decision to take over the district. TEA Director Mike Morath pointed to a corruption scandal in which trustees admitted to accepting kickbacks from district vendors as well as a state conservatorship the TEA had placed over HISD for over two consecutive years.

Lee said she has also been speaking with fellow members of Congress, and has distributed a letter criticizing the takeover.

The story notes that the Chron has not yet seen a copy of the letter; I’d have linked to it if there had been a link in the piece. I have previously suggested that federal intervention is the only possible means of stopping this now, given that passing a new law would take far too long and has at best an uncertain chance of happening. That doesn’t mean I think it has a good chance of success, or that the state would sit idly by if it did happen. My best guess is that the Education Department will review Rep. Jackson Lee’s letter but is unlikely to take action, unless they see a clear justification for it.

On that score, I will note that in a world where we still had a fully functioning Voting Rights Act, the TEA would almost certainly have had to get preclearance to sideline the elected Board of Trustees as they will be doing. (This thought is not original to me, I saw it mentioned somewhere else, maybe on Twitter, but I don’t remember where.) That doesn’t mean the takeover couldn’t have happened, just that it would have required more effort on the TEA’s part, or perhaps that the TEA would have gone about it differently. I will also note that if this is the scandal in question, it involved one Trustee who hasn’t been on the Board since 2020. It’s a thing that happened, but we should acknowledge that no current Trustees – you know, the ones who are going to be replaced – were involved.

UPDATE: The Greater Houston Coalition for Justice has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education regarding the takeover. I’ll post separately about that but wanted to acknowledge it this morning.

Posted in School days | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Asking the feds to stop the TEA takeover

SCOTx denies pre-election challenge to San Antonio marijuana reform referendum

First the voters will vote, then as needed the lawsuits will happen.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday that any legal challenges to a proposed charter amendment on policing reforms must wait until after voters weigh in on the measure in the May municipal election.

While the court did not expressly deny the idea that the charter amendment could violate a state law prohibiting multi-subject charter amendments, Justice Jane Bland wrote that “voters injured by an election irregularity have remedies to address their injury after the election.”

The proposal brought forth by Act 4 SA and other progressive groups seeks to decriminalize marijuana and abortion, ban police chokeholds and no-knock warrants, expand the city’s cite-and-release program for nonviolent, low-level offenders, and create a city justice director to oversee the implementation of those changes.

The measure will be on the May 6 ballot as Proposition A.

Bland also suggested that an effort by three Northside councilmen to skip the City Council vote approving the measure for the ballot could have an impact on its future. Manny Pelaez (D8), John Courage (D9) and Clayton Perry (D10) left the dais shortly before the pro forma vote in February, viewing the measure as unenforceable.

“Sufficient post-election remedies exist that permit the voter to challenge any infirmity in the proposed amendment and its placement on the ballot — after the voters have had their say,” Bland wrote.

[…]

Council approved the ballot 7-0 in the absence of the three council members.

That move triggered a second challenge from TAL’s lawyers, which petitioned the court to remove the charter amendment from the May ballot on the grounds that the San Antonio City Charter prescribes a 10-day delay for ordinances that pass with fewer than eight votes to go into effect. That deadline was Feb. 17, a day after the council vote.

“Our role is to facilitate elections, not to stymie them, and to review the consequences of those elections as the Legislature prescribes,” Bland wrote. “We can readily do so in this instance through a post-election challenge.”

A dissenting opinion from Justice Evan Young pointed to the decision of the three councilmen who were absent from the vote as a pivotal move.

“None of the Court’s stated reasons apply here because they all depend on the same mistaken premise: the existence of a lawfully ordered special election,” Young wrote.

Young noted that in order to hold a special election, a city council must order it at least 78 days beforehand.

“The city council clearly failed to follow that binding legal requirement here,” wrote Young, who was joined by Justices John Devine and Jimmy Blacklock.

In a written response to TAL’s petition, outside lawyers for the San Antonio City Council argued that the city’s 10-day delay doesn’t apply to putting the Justice Charter on the ballot because Texas Election Code supersedes the city’s authority on the matter. The election code doesn’t stipulate the margin by which measures setting an election must be approved, the lawyers wrote.

See here and here for the background. I believe this was the correct ruling, and I agree with Justice Bland’s reasoning. I also think this proposition will face some significant legal headwinds if it does pass, but that’s a fight for another day. Until then, we’ll see how it goes in May. The Current has more.

Posted in Election 2023, Legal matters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Harris County creates reproductive health access fund

Good.

In a bid to protect residents’ already restricted access to reproductive health care, Harris County officials voted to approve a proposed fund to go toward Harris County Public Health and smaller community organizations at Tuesday’s Commissioners Court meeting.

The reproductive health care access fund passed on a 4 to 1 vote, with Republican Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey at odds with his Democratic counterparts.

This fund will allocate $6 million in federal dollars from the American Rescue Plan to assist Harris County Public Health and the partner organizations in providing reproductive care – including contraception, family planning education, preconception health screenings, and STI testing and treatment – to a minimum of 20,000 residents, said County Judge Lina Hidalgo.

It would not include abortion funding or related pregnancy termination services, as Texas has a total ban on abortion even in cases of rape or incest, allowing it only if continuing the pregnancy puts the mother’s life in danger.

The total amount will be distributed in three parts, with $1.1 million going toward expansions for Harris County Public Health’s services, $4.2 million to funding care at the partner organizations, and the remaining $700,000 for operating expenses for these partner organizations and the county’s health facilities.

This fund is a response to Hidalgo’s resolution passed last year following the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, making abortion illegal in in most states, said Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, who accompanied Hidalgo at a press conference held on Monday at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s headquarters.

“There is only so much we can do to stop these draconian, dangerous laws,” Ellis said. “But we can use the resources and power we have in Harris County for residents to access health care services they need to make decisions about their health, family and future. That is what this fund will do.”

Here’s a preview story in the Chron about this action. Because this was onetime grant money, the fund is in place for two years, and after that Commissioners Court will either have to pay for it themselves or find other sources for it. That’s a problem for Future Them; this will address a real need in the here and now, and that’s what matters. Here are a couple of tweets from Judge Hidalgo about it. Good job to the four members of the Court who made this happen.

Posted in Local politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Harris County creates reproductive health access fund

So now we start processing what happened and what will happen with the TEA takeover

The Chron editorial board points to three key items.

Still, if this takeover must happen — and Texas Education Agency announced Wednesday that it is indeed happening — we want it to work. Houston’s schoolchildren don’t have time for another failure. There’s no re-do for high school; these are precious years that even the most cynical politician shouldn’t endeavor to squander. Hear us on that, Governor Abbott.

Our skepticism and worry for the schoolchildren in the path of this takeover are tempered by other things: curiosity about how this experiment will work and even a glimmer of hope about what it could accomplish if TEA’s commissioner, Mike Morath, keeps his word to put kids first.

It won’t stand a chance, though, if there’s not some measure of buy-in from kids, parents and the greater Houston community. Right now, there seems to be largely outrage and fear. Trust, if it comes at all, will require transparency and integrity from Morath and the district’s new leaders.

So, how will we know if this takeover is really about improving schools and the future of Houston’s schoolchildren? Three things:

Leadership: Who will lead the district?
Morath said the next superintendent to lead the 187,000-student district would be appointed in the summer but the name of the person is less important than his or her qualifications and character. Ideally the person would have knowledge of Houston or at least Texas. Most important, though, is experience running a large district and overseeing a successful turnaround. The next HISD leader should be reform-minded but not for reform’s sake. Morath has acknowledged that much is working well in the state’s largest district and many kids are “flourishing,” as he told The Houston Landing’s Jacob Carpenter. The next leader should build on that and endeavor to scale it up across the district so that more kids can know the rigor and high expectations of a Carnegie Vanguard High School, the expertise of a Michael E. DeBakey High School for Health Professions and the inspiration of a Kinder High School for the Performing and Visual Arts.

As for the board of managers expected to replace HISD’s elected board of trustees in June, we implore Abbott to keep the cronies to a minimum. The state should appoint a good mix of educators, parents, business leaders – all of them ideally from the Houston area. They should have a stake in the results but be free of conflicts that could compromise their judgement. We’re glad to see that Morath, in his interview with The Landing, encouraged “people of integrity and wisdom” who are “interested in supporting kids, who truly love kids” to apply “soon” at the TEA website for positions on the board. When this takeover was initially announced in 2019, a diverse group of nearly 250 people applied to serve on the board of mangers and some underwent training. In the three years since, the process was paused by lawsuits. TEA is beginning anew, but not from scratch, given the pool of volunteers who have raised their hands to help.

Strategy: Is the plan based on evidence or politics?
We know what works in education, and no, it’s not merely more money, smaller class sizes or even parental involvement. Those things can help but only in certain contexts, as Amanda Ripley wrote in her 2013 bestseller The Smartest Kids in the World: and how they got that way. Generally, the ingredients to quality public education, according to research, are higher standards, better trained, supported and paid teachers to implement the higher standards, plus accountability to ensure that they do. The state, via the new leaders chosen, will have the space to innovate and perhaps make bold decisions that would normally be politically unpopular if an elected board were still calling the shots. But the guiding star must be best practices. What has truly been proven to work, not just in this country, but in other nations where student performance far outpaces our own.

[…]

End game: This takeover should lead to reform, not purgatory.
There’s a reason “independent” appears in the names of districts across this state. We believe, as do many Texans, that local public school should be run locally, by elected leaders accountable to the public. The TEA must outline a clear plan of action and a timeline to get the work done promptly. Morath told The Landing that he doesn’t expect state control over HISD to last longer than the typical two to six years. But how will we know when the problems that triggered this takeover are solved? It should be clear to all based on clearly defined standards and benchmarks that TEA sets for gauging success. The state agency has already articulated some of these: no campus should receive a D or F state rating for multiple years, the district’s special education program must comply with federal and state requirements, and, more generally, more time during school board meetings should be devoted to discussing student outcomes versus discussing administrative factors, the Chronicle reported. More specificity is needed but these terms seem relatively modest and doable.

I think we’ll know a lot from the announcement of the Board of Managers, and from the naming of a Superintendent. As I noted yesterday, three current Board members, all elected since that initial round of recruitment, were on that list of 243 names. We could get some decent selections, or we could get a bunch of hacks and cronies. The same is true for the Superintendent, and while Mike Morath says he’s bound by the law to pick someone, I don’t see why he can’t name Superintendent House as his choice. We’re in uncharted territory, if you really want to do what’s best then do the obvious here.

The other two items will flow from the first. A decent Board will want to follow best practices and implement genuine improvements – and here I will say that I’d like to hear what that Board ought to do that wasn’t already at least being discussed by this Board – and want to get out in a timely fashion. The first of these should again be clear to us from the beginning, the second may take time to become clear, though having clear objectives and metrics to determine them up front will help a lot. The less we hear from Greg Abbott and the usual crowd of enablers the better. I do actually think Mike Morath wants this to work, if only for his own legacy, and the best way for that to happen is for him to be more or less left alone by Abbott. Like I said, go put your own name forward for this Board if you can. Let’s put that first principle to the test now.

And keep up the pressure wherever you can.

With the news today of the Texas Education Agency taking over Houston Independent School District, Democrats in the Texas House warned that Houston ISD was set up to fail through a lack of funding and state support and that it could be the precursor to other state takeover attempts of districts around the state for political reasons.

“When it comes to TEA, you can’t be the arsonist and the firefighter,” said Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, a San Antonio Democrat and chair of the House Democratic Caucus.

Democrats argued during a Wednesday afternoon press conference that school funding in Texas has lagged behind inflation for years, that teachers are paid so poorly they’re leaving the profession in droves and that retired educators are languishing in poverty because of the lack of inflation adjustments to their benefits over the last several decades.

The underfunding has brought huge challenges for schools, especially those in large school districts like Houston ISD where there are many children from lower-income families, they said.

They pitched a plethora of fixes, including increasing the basic per-student funding number by far more than Republicans have proposed, shifting the funding model from one based on attendance to one based on enrollment and giving retired teachers significant benefit bumps.

Although Democrats are the minority party in both the House and the Senate, Martinez Fischer said he believes the House will need to vote on certain measures that require 100 votes to pass.

Since Republicans don’t have enough votes to do that on their own, he thinks he has leverage to press for some priorities — with investment in public education “at the top” of that list.

One bill they said they hoped to win bipartisan support for was brought by Rep. Alma Allen, a Houston Democrat and vice chair of the House Public Education Committee. It would give the TEA the option to decide against the takeover of school districts, as is happening now with Houston ISD. The agency says its hands are tied legally, and it must move forward with the takeover.

As we have discussed, there’s not much that can be done about the current situation other than holding Morath and the TEA and the future Board of Managers to the promises that have been made about what the goals are of this whole thing, but using whatever leverage Dems have to pass the takeover modification bills is a good use of their time. At least we can try to prevent this from happening again. The Trib and the Texas Signal have more, as do Stace, who fears that any good people on the Board of Managers will be tainted by the bad things it is likely to do, and Campos, who encourages “good, smart, and decent folks to sign up”, have more.

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

Appealing the injunction that halted DFPS investigations of trans kids’ families

Just keeping you informed.

Attorney General Ken Paxton, in an appeal, is asking the courts to lift an injunction that stopped the state from conducting child abuse investigations over transition-related medical care for transgender youth. Paxton argued that the families — belonging to PFLAG, an LGBTQ advocacy group — did not suffer injuries as a result of the Department of Family and Protective Services’ investigations.

A June lawsuit against the state, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal representing the families of transgender youth, resulted in a temporary injunction which paused the DFPS investigations, ordered by Gov. Greg Abbott earlier last year.

Paxton filed the brief on Friday in response to the plaintiffs’ request that the injunction be upheld in January. In his reply, Paxton sought to overturn that court-order injunction issued in September.

The 3rd Court of Appeals will determine if the injunction will hold up, either by hearing from both sides in oral arguments or simply ruling on the briefs filed. Until then, the injunctive relief will remain in place, according to Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice for Lambda Legal.

“There was nothing new about the State’s arguments at all, and thus far, they’ve been rejected by every court that has heard them,” Loewy said in an email.

If the court sides with Paxton, it’s not clear if the DFPS investigations of parents of trans kids would resume. The agency declined to comment on the litigation.

[…]

Paxton said the families have not experienced specific injuries stemming from these investigations, arguing that parents have not lost custody of their children as a result of the investigation and therefore that claim has no standing.

“Thus, [families] have not been injured and their suit is not ripe until their injury is imminent or has already occurred,” Paxton wrote in his appeal.

PFLAG asserted that the state interfered with their parental rights, which are guaranteed in the Texas Constitution. Abbott’s directive ordering DFPS to investigate families has instilled fear in LGBTQ youth who are afraid the state will separate them from their parents. Abbott’s order even forced one family to flee the state.

Paxton also said that PFLAG, which has 600 members, shouldn’t be allowed to stand in for families who could be investigated for child abuse. He said the individual families must participate in the lawsuit in order to provide evidence of injury by the particular investigations directed by Abbott.

See here for the background. I don’t even have the words to respond to the claim that the targeted families have not “experienced specific injuries” from these investigations or the threat of them; that the argument is being made by the guy who fled from a process server because he “feared for his safety” just adds to the mind-melting gall of it. This will make it to the Supreme Court, assuming that one of the many anti-trans bills currently polluting the Lege doesn’t make it all moot. Anyway, there’s your update.

Posted in Legal matters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Appealing the injunction that halted DFPS investigations of trans kids’ families

More on the lawsuit that seeks to clarify exceptions to Texas’ forced birth laws

A couple of interesting articles to read to enhance our understanding of the lawsuit filed by five women who claim that Texas’ anti-abortion laws have harmed them.

From Vox:

In theory, even after the Supreme Court’s anti-abortion decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), medically necessary abortions remain legal in all 50 states. Texas law, for example, is supposed to permit abortions when a patient is “at risk of death” or if they face “a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

There’s also a federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires most hospitals to perform emergency abortions to prevent “serious impairment to bodily functions” or “serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.” (Though, notably, Texas’s GOP attorney general, Ken Paxton, convinced a Trump-appointed judge to issue an opinion claiming that this federal abortion protection does not exist.)

But in practice, the new lawsuit claims, Texas physicians are often too terrified to perform likely legal abortions because the consequences of performing an abortion that the courts later deem to be illegal are catastrophic. The maximum penalty for performing an illegal abortion in Texas is life in prison.

This lawsuit, known as Zurawski v. Texas, asks the state courts to clarify when medically necessary abortions are legal within the state so that doctors can know when they can treat their patients without risking a prison sentence or a lawsuit.

[…]

These plaintiffs argue in their complaint that one reason why Texas doctors are unwilling to perform abortions, even when delaying an abortion risks a patient’s life, is that Texas law is a hodgepodge of multiple abortion bans, each with inconsistent provisions permitting abortions when a patient’s life or health is in danger, and none of which use medical terminology that doctors can rely upon to know exactly what they are and are not permitted to do.

Texas’s primary criminal ban on abortions, for example, provides that abortions are permitted when “in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment” a physician determines that their patient “has a life-threatening physical condition” or faces a “serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function” that relates to their pregnancy.

Meanwhile, a separate statute, enacted before Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, also bans abortions. And it does so with a much narrower exception for abortions performed “for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” But it’s unclear whether, now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe, this law remains in effect or not. While a federal appeals court determined in 2004 that this pre-Roe ban on abortions was “repealed by implication,” Attorney General Paxton claimed that the law is still enforceable after Roe was overruled.

And then there’s SB 8, the state’s bounty hunter law, which permits private citizens to sue doctors who perform abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy. That statute uses completely different language to describe when an abortion is allowed, permitting abortions “if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance” with SB 8.

Most of these statutes, moreover, were enacted when Roe was still good law. So there are few, if any, court decisions interpreting them, explaining how the multiple conflicting exceptions to the multiple different abortion bans interact with each other, or resolving disputes about which laws are actually in effect.

Typically, lawyers rely on past court decisions to predict how courts are likely to apply a statute to their clients. But, without many (or any) such decisions to rely upon, lawyers advising doctors and hospitals cannot provide reliable advice to those clients. And, again, if a doctor and their attorneys guess wrong about whether a particular abortion is legal, that doctor could wind up spending the rest of their life behind bars.

See here, here, and here for more on EMTALA, which is likely to end up before SCOTUS eventually. Author Ian Millhiser speculates about the possibility that the Zurawski case could clarify state law, but he has his doubts. Which leads us to this Slate story.

Make no mistake about it: Texas’ law has unique problems. The state’s conservative lawmakers kept the pre-Roe criminal ban passed in 1925; to circumvent Roe v. Wade, they passed S.B. 8. In 2021, after Donald Trump reshaped the Supreme Court, they passed a trigger law. Inconsistencies crept in, and the result is a mess that frightens doctors away from addressing real emergencies.

But the problems with Texas’ exceptions are broader, and they tell a story about why abortion exceptions as a general matter fail to protect patients. From the time of previous eras’ abortion bans, exceptions were tailored more to prevent free access to the procedure than to address real problems in pregnancy, and state abortion laws today are no exception.

When abortion reform efforts got underway in the 1960s, the American Law Institute proposed what amounted to a menu of exceptions to criminal abortion bans for patients seen to be innocent enough to deserve abortion (the ALI included exceptions for rape and incest, fetal abnormality, and certain health threats). Pushback from anti-abortion lawyers was immediate. They argued not just that abortion was immoral and unconstitutional, but also that the exceptions were an open invitation for fraud. Decades before Todd Akin’s comments about “legitimate rape,” they argued that pregnancy after sexual assault was all but impossible—and that rape exceptions were an excuse for promiscuous women. They framed health exceptions as universally unnecessary, arguing that virtually no pregnancies were life-threatening.

After Roe, anti-abortion suspicion of patients invoking exceptions only deepened. They pointed to Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, that defined health to include physical and mental well-being. For abortion opponents, that looked like an exception that could swallow the rule: wouldn’t anyone forced to remain pregnant suffer mental distress?

So after Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, a ban on Medicaid reimbursement for abortion in 1976, anti-abortion legislators worked to make it harder for patients to invoke exceptions or to eliminate them altogether. Sexual assault victims, for example, had to report to law enforcement within a certain time frame, and some Hyde proponents voted to eliminate all rape and incest exceptions.

Anti-abortion activists began using a similar strategy in model laws designed to chip away at Roe. For example, in the Pennsylvania law considered by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey, anti-abortion groups proposed a medical emergency exception only to save a patient’s life or “create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily function.”

The similarity to Texas’ law is no accident. For the anti-abortion movement, the narrow and ambiguous language adopted by Pennsylvania in the 1980s, and by Texas more recently, reflects the same beliefs: The most important issue is preventing abortion, and exceptions serve primarily to discourage what Republicans see as unjustified procedures. But the justifications of many plaintiffs are all too obvious. One patient diagnosed with “preterm prelabor rupture of membranes” was denied care, developed sepsis, nearly died, and suffered lasting impacts to her future fertility; another, pregnant with twins, was forced to travel out of state to maximize the chances of survival for herself and one of the twins when the second received a devastating diagnosis. These stories will almost certainly continue in Texas and states like it.

In other words, to borrow from a bit of wisdom that has been applied to the Trump regime, the lack of clarity is the point. We don’t know what the courts will make of this, but we can expect that Ken Paxton and the rest of the forced birth machinery will do everything in their power to keep threatening everyone who might try to get an abortion for any reason. You know what I’m going to say here, so say it with me: Nothing will change until we start winning more elections.

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

Dispatches from Dallas, March 17 edition

This is a weekly feature produced by my friend Ginger. Let us know what you think.

This week in North Texas, we have bad bills filed by our local legislators and follow-ups on a variety of ongoing stories in North Texas including the Dallas Zoo, the buyer of the Roe v Wade archive, and the back-and-forth in Frisco ISD about trans kids.

The deadline to file bills in the Texas legislature has passed, so it’s time for a rogue’s gallery of bad bill filers from North Texas. Take note of these names and remember to remind your pals from these parts that friends don’t let friends vote for dumbasses who put forward garbage bills.

Senator Phil King of Weatherford (west of Fort Worth) is a co-sponsor of bills designed to restrict the development of renewable energy in Texas in favor of fossil fuel power plants [Archive link].

Representative Bryan Slaton of Royse City (northeast of Dallas) wants to put a secession referendum on the ballot, which is probably illegal and unconstitutional, but who cares about that? He also filed HB 42, which would define gender-affirming care for kids as child abuse.

As mentioned in this article, Representative Nate Schatzline of Fort Worth filed HB 1266, which defines commercial enterprises that host drag shows as sexually oriented businesses. The linked article is about him harassing a constituent who responded by posting a picture of Schatzline in a dress to social media.

Representative Jared Patterson of Frisco has a number of bad bills, mentioned in this article about his Don’t Say Gay Bill. His greatest hits for the 2023 session also include abolishing the city of Austin and banning minors from social media.

Representative Matt Shaheen of Plano (of whom more later) filed a bill to make daylight savings time permanent, which is less harmful than other bills described here but is not what I’d personally consider a high priority in the 2023 session. He’s also behind HB 620, which would end the Robin Hood school tax recapture. (This local news story has some numbers for what Robin Hood does to Dallas and Plano schools.) While there’s quite a bit of room for debate around Robin Hood, I’m personally suspicious of a bill by a Republican who’s in favor of “school choice”, aka defunding public schools and subsidizing private schools. Shaheen is a little smart to be on the dumbass list and is all the more dangerous for it.

One good bill I like comes from Austin, where Representative Donna Howard filed to exempt menstrual products and a variety of pregnancy and baby needs from state sales tax.

In other stories:

Posted in Blog stuff | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Dispatches from Dallas, March 17 edition

The TEA takeover has begun

At least the suspense is over. That’s the extent of my optimism about this.

State education leaders notified the Houston Independent School District on Wednesday that they are resuming the process of stripping all power from the district’s elected school board and giving it to a soon-to-be appointed governance group – a long-anticipated move that faces strong opposition from many Houston-area politicians, educators and families.

The announcement, which largely stems from a state law mandating sanctions against districts with chronically low-rated campuses, follows a Texas Supreme Court ruling in January that lifted a temporary injunction blocking the elected board’s ouster. It now sets the stage for the largest state takeover of a public school district in modern American history, while also throwing the future of HISD into further doubt after years of board dysfunction and leadership upheaval.

“In each of these cases, we have to look at what is in the best interest of students and what are the root causes that require state intervention in the first place,” Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath said. “In this particular case, it’s about the leadership at the top. Making sure that we have a school board that is focused on ensuring that all kids in Houston, not just some kids in Houston, have access to great schools.”

The replacement governance team, known as a board of managers, will assume responsibility for setting HISD’s budget and districtwide policies, among other tasks. State leaders have not announced who will serve on the board of managers, though Morath told the Houston Landing this week that he expects to name replacements and transfer control to them no earlier than June 1.

Morath also confirmed that he plans to replace HISD Superintendent Millard House II – an authority given to him when appointing a board of managers – with a yet-to-be-named district leader once the replacement board takes power.

Boards of managers in Texas historically have held power for roughly two to five years before transferring authority back to elected trustees. Morath said he sees no reason to expect the HISD board of managers’ reign would extend beyond that range.

The state’s planned takeover is primarily tied to a state law passed in 2015 with bipartisan support. The law mandates one of two sanctions – the appointment of a board of managers or closure of low-rated campuses – in any district with a school that fails to meet state academic standards for five straight years. HISD’s Wheatley High School triggered that law in 2019 when it received its seventh consecutive failing grade.

In moving to replace HISD’s elected board, Morath has also cited the prolonged presence of a state-appointed conservator in the district and a state investigation that found multiple instances of trustee misconduct, such as violations of Texas’ open meetings laws and improper attempts to steer vendor contracts. Morath has the legal authority to install a board of managers on both fronts – though he’s not required to do so.

[…]

Morath said state officials will soon reboot their process for identifying replacement board members, an undertaking they began in late 2019 before the issuance of a court injunction. He reiterated a commitment to appointing a replacement board composed of HISD residents, and added that he would “prefer people who do not have ideological blinders, one way or the other.”

“They need to come in with wisdom and eyes wide open and make decisions in a very complex environment that are in the best interest of kids,” Morath said. “And this requires people that can think very, very clearly. That have an understanding of creating a culture of servant leadership and systems leadership. There’s not any specific agenda other than what is in the best interest of kids that we want to see pursued.”

However, hundreds of attendees at several recent protests opposing the takeover have voiced fears about Abbott’s education commissioner appointing managers who will push for charter school expansion and other policies favored by Republicans.

“Ultimately, I am really confused about what the end game is for Morath and Abbott,” state Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, said earlier this month. “If your objective is to make sure schools are run correctly, this is not the right way to do it. The takeover of school districts in the past, in my experience, have been school districts that are completely dysfunctional.”

Ultimately, the appointed board will have some incentive to implement policies that curry favor with local residents. If the board of managers defies the popular consensus in HISD on major issues, the elected board could immediately reverse those decisions upon retaking power in the coming years – a scenario that would cause even more disruption in a district craving stability. Morath said he expects the replacement board to remain engaged with HISD residents, leaders and trustees.

Elected board members will retain their seats, though they will not hold any power. Board elections will continue uninterrupted, with four races still scheduled for November.

“We don’t know who’s going to be on the board of managers, what connections they will have to the community, so I’ll be making sure they have somebody letting them know what the community wants and playing an advisory role,” HISD Board President Dani Hernandez said.

Much of this article is taken from their interview with Morath. Heck of a scoop, I guess. We did have some indications of this late on Tuesday, as there were takeover docs briefly posted on the TEA’s website; they were later removed from view as this was apparently jumping the gun.

The Chron story on those prematurely-released documents also included a link to the list of people who had applied for the Board of Managers in 2019, which was the last time we went through this exercise, before the HISD litigation put it all on hold for what turned out to be three years. Of interest, and as a reminder that there’s been quite a bit of turnover on the HISD Board since then, three of those applicants are now incumbent Trustees: Patricia Allen, Kathy Blueford-Daniels, and Judith Cruz. Current HCDE Trustee Amy Hinojosa is in there as well. I recognize some other former candidates, and a parent of some former classmates of my daughters. I wonder if Morath had any favorites from that list, if there’s anyone that the TEA will encourage to apply again. Be that as it may, I’d say anyone who’s mad about this ought to apply to be on the Board themselves. May as well make sure there are at least a few people we can trust in the process.

On a related note, here’s another story about how state takeovers of school districts usually don’t accomplish anything worthwhile, not just in Texas but around the country.

From Massachusetts to Mississippi and California to Kentucky, state officials in recent decades have increasingly responded to school districts struggling with poor academics or financial woes by usurping local control and pledging to turn around the schools.

But these state takeovers, according to a recent study, are mostly ineffective.

“The best evidence we have shows that takeovers don’t often achieve their intended results, don’t improve student achievement and don’t yield better outcomes for kids,” said Josh McGee, an economist at the University of Arkansas. “There are cases where we have seen improvement — but those are few and far between.”

McGee, associate director for the university’s education policy office, was referencing a 2021 study conducted by Beth Schueler from the University of Virginia and Joshua Bleiberg at Brown University. In the first cross-state comparison of its kind, the researchers examined all state takeovers from 2011 to 2016 and, on average, found “no evidence that takeover generates academic benefits.”

The study shows varying results among districts across the country. In general, state takeovers are far from uniform since officials making different policy choices within different contexts. Research shows that some schools appear to have benefited from takeovers while others have tanked.

The TL;dr of this is that the situations in which state takeovers tended to do best are those with school districts that are well below standards. HISD, with its overall B rating and 94 percent of schools rated C or better, does not meet that criteria. The main issues with schools that perform poorly are poverty and other socioeconomic factors, which are best dealt with via greater resources. I’m sure you can surmise what the odds of that are with HISD. Beyond that, and again stop me if you’ve heard this before, most state education departments don’t have the experience or the tools to make a difference. The best you can say is that they don’t really do any damage while they’re in charge.

We’re in uncharted territory here. I encourage you to read that Houston Landing interview with Mike Morath, and their FAQ about what it means. Whatever else I might say, he just doesn’t sound like he’s thrilled to be in this position. I don’t know if that means anything, but it was my impression. The takeover happens in June. In the meantime, apply to be on the Board, make a pledge to hold that Board’s feet to the fire, and let’s try to finally knock Harold Dutton out of the Lege next year. The Chron, Reform Austin, the Press, and the Trib have more.

Posted in School days | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The unhinged abortion pill lawsuit hearing

What a shitshow.

The future of medication abortion in the United States remains up in the air after a federal judge heard arguments Wednesday in a suit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s long-standing approval of mifepristone.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said he would rule “as soon as possible” on the challenge brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative, anti-abortion law firm.

ADF is asking Kacsmaryk to suspend — and ultimately withdraw — the FDA’s approval of the medication, which would have nationwide implications, especially in states where abortion remains legal. In the hearing, a lawyer for ADF conceded that this would be unprecedented, but argued that the court had the authority to intervene to prevent harm.

Lawyers for the Department of Justice and Danco Laboratories, the pharmaceutical company that produces generic mifepristone, argued that the lawsuit is meritless.

Granting a preliminary injunction would be “depriving patients and doctors of a safe and effective drug,” argued Julie Straus Harris, with the DOJ.

Since it was initially approved in 2000, mifepristone has been found to be overwhelmingly safe and effective for terminating pregnancies. Citing that body of evidence, the FDA has recently relaxed restrictions on the medication, which is used in the majority of the abortions in the United States.

In the suit, ADF is representing anti-abortion medical organizations and doctors who argue they have been harmed by having to treat patients who have experienced adverse effects from the medications — and that they anticipate increased harm as a result of these loosened restrictions.

They also argue the drug was initially approved improperly under an FDA regulation that fast-tracks drugs that treat serious illnesses.

“Pregnancy is not an illness,” said Erik Baptist, a lawyer for ADF, in Wednesday’s hearing. “Mifepristone doesn’t treat anything.”

Kacsmaryk, appearing to give weight to that argument, listed off all the drugs that were approved under this regulation before mifepristone, most of which treat HIV and cancer. Separately, he summarized Baptist’s argument as asking the court to “deem one of these not like the others.”

The hearing, which ran more than four hours in Kacsmaryk’s Amarillo courtroom, covered a wide range of arguments. But the central question before Kacsmaryk is not as much about abortion as it is about administrative procedure — and whether the plaintiffs have any right to bring this lawsuit at all.

See here and here for the background. I can’t overstate how ridiculous this all is, and that includes the extreme restrictions on coverage of the hearing, for which you literally had to be there or at a single courthouse in Dallas, but only a handful of people were allowed at the courtroom, and cellphones were banned, so no live-tweeting. All for a hearing at which one hand-picked judge could severely curtail access to abortion for millions of women across the country, based on vibes. I really hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see anything in the coverage I’ve read to suggest this guy will do anything other than what he clearly wants to do. We’ll find out soon. Jezebel, the Associated Press, Slate, Daily Kos, and NBC News have more.

UPDATE: From Slate, “If Kacsmaryk rewrites the history of mifepristone’s approval as grounds to pull it from the market, his decision should command no respect or acquiescence from anyone—not the FDA, not abortion providers, and certainly not the public at large.”

Posted in Legal matters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The unhinged abortion pill lawsuit hearing

On the source of Houston’s greenhouse gas emissions

This story is a lot more complex and nuanced than the headline would lead you to believe.

It may come as no surprise to anyone who has spent time on Houston’s roads at rush hour that just over half of all the city’s reported greenhouse gas emissions come directly from traffic. This is the greatest share among the largest U.S. cities that volunteered emissions information to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).

The data was collected by survey in partnership with CDP and ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, and contains self-reported amounts of methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide as well as other notable greenhouse gasses and carcinogens. The data is broken out by 51 categories submitted by more than 1,100 cities, states and municipalities around the world.

Data like this is considered primarily a preparedness tool according to Katie Walsh, head of cities, states, regions and public authorities for CDP’s North America division. By compiling and submitting this data and by answering questions about climate change mitigation policies, Walsh says cities get a chance to assess where they stand and where they need to go to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In a city reporting vehicle-oriented emissions as high as Houston’s, local governments and nonprofits can use that data to design initiatives that target specific  needs. One example, Evolve Houston, which grew out of the city’s climate action plan, is working to reduce carbon emissions from personal vehicles by pushing electric vehicle adoption and infrastructure.

The 2022 CDP submission marks the 11th year Houston has reported data to the CDP.

Stationary emitters like homes and businesses, as well as power plants, typically make up the lion’s share of emissions in cities, according to CDP city-level data. But despite a large oil and gas industry and booming housing developments, this is not true for Houston – traffic is king.

Although traffic is undoubtedly a top greenhouse gas emitter across the nation, its spot at No. 1 in Houston may have more to do with how well it’s tracked and how poorly other sources are monitored. For example, emissions from the Port of Houston – one of the largest ports in the US, mover of 55 million tons of annual cargo and representative of 20.6 percent of Texas’ total gross domestic product – are not accounted for in the city’s reporting. The city hopes to include emissions from “waterborne navigation” in future reports.

Looking at a city’s share of emissions by “sub-sectors,” which are the smallest buckets that emissions can be categorized by in the CDP data, reveals unique inventories for each city. These inventories can help city officials identify the most problematic sources of pollution as well as where they have deficiencies in emissions reporting.

There’s more, so read the rest. The main thing I took away from it is that categorizing the data can be helpful in telling cities where to prioritize efforts, but there’s a lot of subjectiveness in it, which limits the usefulness of those categories. Cities only have control over so much of the emissions in their vicinity as well. Having good data is helpful, but getting good data is easier said than done, and there’s a lot of room for improvement now. But it’s better than nothing.

Posted in Elsewhere in Houston | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on On the source of Houston’s greenhouse gas emissions

Texas blog roundup for the week of March 13

The Texas Progressive Alliance hopes your internal clocks have all adjusted 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 March 13

The hearing for that unhinged abortion pill lawsuit is today

Like I said, brace yourselves.

A federal judge in Texas will hear arguments Wednesday in a closely watched dispute that could halt distribution of a key drug used for medication abortion and disrupt access nationwide, even in states where reproductive rights are protected.

The case before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk was brought in November by a conservative legal organization on behalf of anti-abortion rights medical associations and targets the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decades-old approval of the drug mifepristone, one of two medications used to terminate an early pregnancy.

The associations have requested Kacsmaryk order the FDA to withdraw its 2000 approval of mifepristone, arguing the agency erred when it gave the green-light to the drug under a regulation that allows accelerated approval of medications for “serious or life-threatening illnesses.”

But the Biden administration has warned that such a step would harm patients who rely on abortion pills and further strain state health care systems, particularly in places with clinics already grappling with overcrowding as a result of abortion restrictions in neighboring states.

The parties will have two hours apiece to press their arguments before Kacsmaryk, and the judge laid out a host of issues for them to discuss Wednesday, including whether the associations have the legal standing to sue, whether an injunction would serve the public interest and the regulation under which mifepristone was approved.

Kacsmaryk could issue his decision on the associations’ request for a preliminary injunction any time after the hearing, though a quick appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is expected.

[…]

In papers filed with the court, the anti-abortion rights groups claimed the FDA exceeded its regulatory authority to approve mifepristone and has over the years removed safeguards by changing the dosage and route of administration in 2016, and lifting an in-person dispensing requirement to allow the pills to be mailed in 2021.

“The FDA took these actions by running roughshod over the laws and regulations that govern the agency and, more importantly, protect the public from harmful drugs,” they argued.

The Biden administration countered that the challengers’ request for the court to withdraw approval of mifepristone is “extraordinary and unprecedented.” Administration lawyers said they have been unable to find any case where a court has “second-guessed FDA’s safety and efficacy determination and ordered a widely available FDA-approved drug to be removed from the market — much less an example that includes a two-decade delay.”

Taking aim at the associations’ claim that the FDA improperly accelerated approval of mifepristone without substantial evidence of its safety, Justice Department lawyers noted that the 2000 approval of the drug came more than four years after manufacturer Danco submitted its application.

The drug maker, too, told the court that forcing the FDA to withdraw its long standing approval of mifepristone would not only “seismically disrupt the agency’s governing authority as to whether drugs are safe and effective,” but also put Danco out of business.

“The public has no interest in a hastily cobbled together, and overtly political, attempt by private parties to wrest control of the drug approval process from the United States agency responsible for it — an agency that has acted deliberately, thoughtfully, and consistent with its authorizing statute and implementing regulations,” the company said.

See here for the background. Plenty of legal types have written at length about how specious and flimsy the plaintiffs’ arguments are, and how utterly lacking their claim of standing is, so I’ll just note that and move on. Whether any of that matters to this wingnut judge or not will only be known after his ruling. As for the coverage of this ridiculous lawsuit, TPM among others provided insight:

TPM has obtained, and is first to report, the transcript from the status conference, which was conducted over the phone.

The case centers on the Food and Drug Administration’s 20-year-old approval of mifepristone, a drug often prescribed with misoprostol to induce abortions. Anti-abortion groups are trying to get that approval revoked, which could send the drug’s availability into flux.

After some typical housekeeping, Kacsmaryk leans on the lawyers to keep the hearing quiet.

“Because of limited security resources and staffing, I will ask that the parties avoid further publicizing the date of the hearing,” he said. “This is not a gag order but just a request for courtesy given the death threats and harassing phone calls and voicemails that this division has received. We want a fluid hearing with all parties being heard. I think less advertisement of this hearing is better.”

He said that the case so far has brought “a barrage of death threats and protesters and the rest.”

“So we will have standard security protocols in place, but I’ll just ask as a courtesy that you not further advertise or Tweet any of the details of this hearing so that all parties can be heard and we don’t have any unnecessary circus-like atmosphere of what should be more of an appellate-style proceeding,” he added.

He then told the lawyers that he was going to purposefully keep the hearing off the docket until the day before the hearing, to keep it as under the radar as possible — a move that prompted questions and objections by observers when discovered. A Department of Justice lawyer on the call sought clarification about whether the hearing would be made public at some point Tuesday.

“To minimize some of the unnecessary death threats and voicemails and harassment that this division has received from the start of the case, we’re going to post that later in the day,” Kacsmaryk replied. “So it may even be after business hours, but that will be publicly filed.”

The absolute best case scenario here is that in the end this was all a massive waste of time and energy. Here’s hoping. CNN, ABC News, and CNBC have more.

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

Founder of that voter roll maintenance program that election denialists hate has stepped down

I’m sure this will calm everyone down and restore the faith everyone once had in this program. Right?

David Becker, an election law advocate who helped create the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), is vacating his position on its board as a flurry of far-right conspiracy theories about the voter roll maintenance program prompted a handful of red states to withdraw from its services.

“Today, I informed [ERIC] that I will not accept renomination as a non-voting member of the board when my term expires this week,” he announced in a tweet on Tuesday. “I remain very proud of leading the effort to create ERIC, and supporting its expansion to over half the states in a decade.”

ERIC is a non-partisan program used by over 30 states to help clean up voter rolls since there is no national voter database. It’s recently become the target of election deniers and far-right conspiracy theorists who are pushing the false narrative that it’s run and funded by liberals—including Becker and, the far-right’s favorite bogeyman billionaire philanthropist, George Soros.

Becker said these right-wing attacks are the reason he’s decided to leave the board. “Unfortunately, attacks fueled by disinformation by those who want our democracy to fail, have led to some states, all R-led, to diminish their own ability to maintain election integrity,” he wrote.

See here for the background. I’m sure you all read my opening sentence with the proper tone of voice. I note that our Secretary of State has begun an effort to find a replacement for ERIC, which I’m sure will end well. We live in truly stupid times.

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

Uvalde DA joins DPS in resisting release of shooting info

We’re still waiting.

Uvalde’s district attorney has joined the Texas Department of Public Safety in fighting the release of public records related to last year’s mass shooting at Robb Elementary School, arguing that all of the families who lost children want them withheld. But attorneys for a vast majority of the families are refuting that claim, saying that the information should be made public.

“These Uvalde families fundamentally deserve the opportunity to gain the most complete factual picture possible of what happened to their children,” wrote Brent Ryan Walker, one of the attorneys who represents the parents of 16 deceased children and one who survived, in a court affidavit filed Tuesday evening.

Numerous news organizations, including The Texas Tribune and ProPublica, are suing DPS for records that could provide a more complete picture of law enforcement’s response to the shooting, which left 19 students and two teachers dead in the border community.

The state’s top police agency has refused to release records, including incident reports, internal communications, ballistic reports and body-camera footage.

Last week, Uvalde District Attorney Christina Mitchell supported DPS’ position in a court filing. Disclosing such records could jeopardize any criminal charges Mitchell may seek in response to an investigation by the Texas Rangers, her office wrote.

[…]

In a court filing asking a judge to block the release of records, Mitchell’s office claimed that the families of every child who was killed shared her view.

“All of the families of the deceased children have stated to District Attorney Mitchell that they do not want the investigation of the Texas Rangers released until she has had ample time to review the case and present it to an Uvalde grand jury, if appropriate,” her office wrote.

At least two parents told ProPublica and the Tribune that Mitchell never asked for their input on the release of records. Separately, attorneys representing numerous families said they disagreed with Mitchell’s attempt to withhold the records related to the investigation.

“To date our attempts to gain information that these families should be entitled to receive from their government officials has been thwarted under the vague allegation of ongoing investigations. This attempt by Ms. Mitchell to intervene and prevent the release of this report is another example,” said Robert Paul Wilson, a lawyer representing the families of a teacher and a student killed in the shooting as well as children who survived.

See here, here, and here for some background. We can certainly talk about the ongoing investigations and the need to keep at least some information confidential for the time being – it would be nice to have some limits on that, and to give some general idea of how much long it might take, though that is an issue the courts may rule on. Lying about having all of the affected parents on your side, that’s pretty egregious. Why lie about something that can be so easily checked? Not a good look at all. I hope she gets held to account for that.

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

The latest obsession of election denialist crackpots

You may want to sit down before you read this.

In virtual meetings taking place over a year, right-wing activists and Republican legislators have stoked concern over a multistate coalition that Texas and more than 30 other states use to help clean voter rolls. The majority of their grievances — that it is run by left-wing voter registration activists and funded by George Soros, among other things — were pulled straight from a far-right conspiracy website and are baseless.

Now, lawmakers who regularly attend those meetings have introduced legislation written by the group that would end Texas’s participation in the Electronic Registration Information Center, also known as ERIC.

The bills were introduced despite the efforts of Texas’s elections director, who attended a meeting and offered factual information related to their concerns last April, apparently without success.

Keith Ingram, the elections director for the secretary of state’s office, told the group the program was the only option available to ensure voters aren’t registered or voting in more than one state at the same time. Nonetheless, the activists moved forward with an effort that experts say is set to undermine one of the best election integrity tools available to Texas and other states to prevent election fraud.

“We want to be able to do something and we have a senator that’s willing to help change that or add language or improve or reform ERIC,” said Toni Anne Dashiell last August, referring to Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola. Dashiell, the Republican national committeewoman for Texas, organizes the meetings and refers to them as “TAD Talks.”

Shortly after, the group’s ERIC task force — led by Alan Vera, the current Harris County Republican Party ballot security chairman, and Dana Myers, the Texas Republican Party vice-chair — began drafting legislation. Myers declined to comment for this story. Dashiell and Vera did not respond to Votebeat’s requests for comment or to emailed questions about how the effort would improve elections in Texas.

Vera announced during a January meeting of the task force that they had submitted the draft of such a bill to Hughes’ staff for review. Hughes, who attended almost every single one of the virtual meetings, filed legislation with their suggestions as Senate Bill 1070 in February. Rep. Jacey Jetton, R-Richmond, also a regular speaker in the virtual calls, filed a companion bill in the House. Hughes and Jetton did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

“Now, there is no evidence that ERIC is doing anything to Texas voter rolls, I want to be clear about that,” Hughes said during a virtual meeting in October. “But we do know, again, that the people running ERIC don’t share our worldview.”

There’s a lot more, so read the rest and also read this TPM story from earlier in the week that was about other states doing similar stuff. The very short summary here is that bad people who lie a lot about “vote fraud” are baselessly attacking a bipartisan tool that actually helps identify people who are registered in multiple states and wanting to replace it with some unknown thing that they control. Nothing good can come of this, and unfortunately like most things there’s not much we can do if Republicans are determined to pass something. More from TPM here.

(There is one thing we can do, and that’s really try to take out Rep. Jetton in 2024. HD26 was moderately competitive in 2020, though less so last year. Still, this is a purple-ish district and he should be strongly challenged for facilitating such denialist bullshit. We’re never going to get anywhere until some Republicans start losing elections as a result of the extremist things they do. Jacey Jetton and HD26 is as good a place to start with this as any.)

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

The Lege still doesn’t want to pay for Paxton’s whistleblower sins

Who can blame them?

A crook any way you look

Now midway through the legislative session, Paxton and state lawmakers are at a standstill, and taxpayers are caught in the middle.

Lawmakers have so far declined to include the settlement money in any budget bills, while Paxton argues that the agreement would ultimately save taxpayers from funding a lengthy court case that may end with a higher price tag.

The whistleblowers’ accusations have prompted an ongoing Department of Justice investigation of Paxton, who has denied any wrongdoing. Paxton’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Political experts say the Legislature’s reluctance to embrace the agreement could be a tactic to pressure Paxton to either pay for the settlement himself or answer for the corruption allegations in court.

“It’s like the Legislature is telling Paxton that this is his problem to take care of,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. “This is as close as Paxton will come to a political sanction from his party for his actions. … The party is not going to directly say that they think that he’s done wrong, but they certainly don’t want to be on the hook to foot the bill.”

Lawmakers suggested at a budget hearing last month that Paxton should use his own campaign funds to settle the case, as the state’s election laws allow. But a Paxton staffer interjected, noting that whistleblower laws hold the office accountable, not the officeholder.

[…]

As of January, Paxton had $2.3 million in his campaign war chest and $1.3 million in outstanding loans. He would have to fundraise to pay off the rest of the settlement — a “horrific” option for the attorney general, Rottinghaus said.

The whistleblowers on Wednesday requested that the Texas Supreme Court lift its temporary pause on the case. If Paxton and the whistleblowers remain at an impasse through the end of legislative session in May, they’ll all head back to court.

Chris Hilton, the general litigation division chief and a lawyer for Paxton, accused the whistleblowers on Thursday of trying to “undo the agreement by filing a misleading brief with the Texas Supreme Court, all the while coordinating with the media to create drama.”

“We’ll continue to seek a cost-efficient resolution, even while the plaintiffs needlessly drag this process out,” Hilton said.

Turner pushed back on that claim, pointing to a court filing by the attorney general’s office in which Paxton’s attorneys agreed that “should the parties prove unable to obtain funding,” they would jointly ask the Texas Supreme Court to resume the case.

“As we negotiated the formal agreement, the attorney general backtracked and would not agree to a deadline for legislative approval,” Turner said. “Anyone reading this can easily decide for themselves who is being misleading and who is dragging this process out.”

Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, said Paxton is essentially giving the Legislature an ultimatum: “‘Pay to clean up my mess, or as I stall on this set of corruption charges brought against me by my former employees, that could sum up to a great deal more than $3.3 million.’”

The only reason the attorney general’s staff knows the cost could be higher, Jillson said, “is because they intend to stretch this thing out as far as possible.”

With two months left in the legislative session, there’s still plenty of time for lawmakers to change their minds, but it’s a touchy subject.

See here for the background. I remain fine with the stance that the Lege has taken so far, however doubtful I am about their resolve. Put simply, don’t bail out Ken Paxton. I recognize that this puts a burden on the whistleblowers, who did us all a favor by coming forward like this, and I regret that they are caught in the middle. I also maintain that approving the settlement and cutting the AG’s budget by an equivalent (or greater!) amount would be fine, but I have yet to see any suggestion of that in any of these stories. Changing the law to allow Paxton to pay this with his campaign funds might be OK, and there are other ideas that could work. All I care is that no one takes Paxton off the hook. If that means the taxpayers face a bigger payout down the line, so be it. The point is that he should own it all. The Trib has more.

Posted in Legal matters, That's our Lege | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Lege still doesn’t want to pay for Paxton’s whistleblower sins

Metro gets some BRT money

Thank you, FTA, may we please have some more?

Houston’s biggest bus rapid transit line, the planned University Corridor, is still on the drawing board, but already is drawing in federal funds.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, in a Thursday announcement, said the Metropolitan Transit Authority project will receive $150 million in the upcoming budget of the Federal Transit Administration, as part of the New Starts grant program for major transit projects. The approval, subject to Congress passing the overall budget, marks the first federal funds dedicated to the line, out of a potential $939.3 million of the $1.57 billion cost that could come from Washington.

“It is going to help people get where they need to go,” Buttigieg said of the project, one of nine chosen nationally for new funding, totaling $1.3 billion.

The line, when built, will stretch more than 25 miles from the Tidwell Transit Center to the area around the University of Houston, then westward through Midtown, Greenway Plaza, south of Uptown and eventually to Westchase. Buses will have their own dedicated lanes, either by taking existing lanes from local streets such as Lockwood and Richmond, or along its own route parallel to Westpark Drive.

Officials are wrapping up their second round of public meetings on plans for the route, with construction scheduled to start in late 2024. The buses could begin carrying riders in 2028. Current timelines, and all the federal funding, are contingent on the project being completely designed and Metro and federal officials agreeing on the project’s specifics next year.

Transit agency CEO Tom Lambert called the award “great news,” and credited staff for keeping the project on pace after voters approved the long-range plan in 2019, even as Metro maneuvered through a massive drop in ridership related to the COVID pandemic.

Metro’s board is set to consider, possibly later this month, the preferred route for the dedicated lanes.

See here, here, and here for some background. I’m eager to see the official preferred route – we have a route for the Inner Katy BRT line, which if all goes as planned will open a year earlier, in 2027 – and start thinking about how to actually get around town with these things. I will reiterate what I said in that Inner Katy post, which is that to truly realize the potential of these routes, some investment will need to be made along them both in increasing and improving the sidewalks that will connect the stops to the surrounding neighborhoods. For example, if there’s a stop along the Universities BRT at Westpark and Newcastle, building in about a half-mile of sidewalk along Newcastle to the south will connect to Bellaire (where there’s already a really nice and wide walking path) and the HCC West Loop campus. There’s no reason not to make this investment in maximizing the utility of these transit lines.

Also, too, and I’ll never not be bitter about this, but this would open 25 years after the Main Street light rail line, and what, 15 years after the various extensions were built. Had it not been for John Culberson, we could have already had a Universities light rail line in place and maybe be adding on to it instead of building this from scratch so many years later. I know there’s nothing to be gained from crying over this, and all we can do is work to make what we have now better, but this is a grudge I will hold till I die.

Posted in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Metro gets some BRT money

Chron story on Fair For Houston

Good stuff.

Local advocates have launched a petition drive aimed at increasing the city’s voice on the Houston-Galveston Area Council, a 13-county regional planning council that has been criticized by Houston leaders for what they consider unfair federal fund allocation.

Consisting of more than 100 local governments, including cities, counties and school districts, the council frequently serves as the decision maker for distributing federal funding for flood protection, workforce development and large-scale infrastructure works to member jurisdictions.

With more than 2.3 million residents, Houston represents more than 30% of the population within H-GAC’s jurisdiction, but only two city officials serve on its 37-member board.

Since mid-January, volunteers of the newly formed Houston-Galveston Area PAC have been collecting signatures from Houston voters under an initiative called “Fair for Houston,” with the aim of putting a city charter amendment on the ballot in November.

The proposed charter amendment would have Houston withdraw from any regional planning group without a proportional voting structure based on population size. The goal , organizer Michael Moritz said, is to compel H-GAC to revise its voting system.

“This organization is continuing to influence Houston in a way that has a strong human cost,” Moritz said. “Flood infrastructure not being built in Houston is going to influence how our city experiences the next major hurricane. And transportation projects are going to influence the risk of someone being injured or killed in a car crash or the rates of childhood asthma in schools near freeways.”

“Houston is the largest city in the metro area,” he said. “We have a significant amount of leverage here. The H-GAC would be in an existential crisis should they not be willing to hear Houston out and adapt the voting structure.”

Waller County Judge Trey Duhon, chairman of the H-GAC board of directors, said a proportional voting structure would give Houston and Harris County too much power and go against the spirit of regional representation.

“H-GAC is a regional planning organization and must always consider the big picture when it comes to our Gulf Coast region and the impact we can have on every county in H-GAC, large or small,” Duhon said. “What is being proposed would essentially kill the essence of a regional planning council of governments. It would allow two jurisdictions to essentially control and dominate regional decisions amongst the 13 counties. That undermines the entire purpose of the council of government.”

[…]

Moritz said that while the group’s ultimate goal is to have H-GAC change its voting structure, the city could decide to withdraw from H-GAC but still continue to receive funding under federal regulations on metropolitan planning organizations until a new regional planning group is created.

“There’s no risk that federal funding dries up,” he said. “All that we’re doing here is forcing H-GAC ‘s hand in a way. And Houston could decide to work with regional governments to constitute a new MPO in what would be sort of the last possible scenario if they continue to be obstinate toward Houston’s request.”

Danny Perez, a spokesperson for the Houston District of the Texas Department of Transportation, said the department “is committed to working with our MPO partners and will continue to do so whether as currently defined or restructured.”

See here for when I noted the existence of Fair For Houston. The story notes some previous examples of HGAC screwing us out of a fair share of funds, a situation that the likes of Trey Duhon no doubt thinks is just fine. It’s called “democracy”, Trey. Look it up sometime.

After I first posted about FFH, I started wondering about what would happen to the federal grant and appropriation process if Houston and Harris County were no longer in HGAC. My main fear was that some alternate organization would have to be created by the Legislature for the new Houston/Harris organization to participate in that process. That doesn’t appear to be the case, which is greatly reassuring, but I’d still like to see a super wonky explanation of what exactly would happen if the “take our ball and go home” threat got carried out, just so we’d all know what hoops or pitfalls there might be along the way. And if HGAC gets on board with the idea of, you know, not screwing Houston and Harris County, that would be great. Not blowing it up is usually the easier path. We just need to make sure the path we’re on is going somewhere good. If you go to the Fair For Houston website, you can see they have a number of events coming up to help collect the needed signatures. Go help them out if you can.

Posted in Election 2023 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chron story on Fair For Houston

The unhinged abortion pills lawsuit will take place in darkness

Nothing about this is good.

The Texas judge who could undo government approval of a key abortion drug has scheduled the first hearing in the case for Wednesday but took unusual steps to keep it from being publicized, according to people familiar with the plans.

The hearing will be an opportunity for lawyers for the Justice Department, the company that makes the drug and the conservative group that is challenging it to argue their positions before U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. After they do, the judge could rule at any time.

Kacsmaryk scheduled the hearing during a call with attorneys Friday, said multiple people familiar with the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it. Kacsmaryk said he would delay putting the hearing on the public docket until late Tuesday to try to minimize disruptions and possible protests, and asked the lawyers on the call not to share information about it before then, the people said.

Public access to federal court proceedings is a key principle of the American judicial system, and Kacsmaryk’s apparent delay in placing the hearing on the docket is highly unusual. The judge and his staff did not respond to emails requesting comment on Saturday evening.

The lawsuit seeks to revoke Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in a medication abortion. The case has garnered widespread attention and protests.

A decision by Kacsmaryk to suspend FDA approval of mifepristone would immediately prompt major changes in how many abortion clinics across the country provide care. Some are planning to immediately switch to a misoprostol-only protocol, while others are planning to offer only surgical abortions. Any decision would likely be appealed to the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and possibly to the Supreme Court.

[…]

Kacsmaryk told the attorneys that he also wanted to delay publicizing the hearing because courthouse members have received threats in the wake of the lawsuit, according to the people familiar with the call. Several people close to Kacsmaryk say the judge and his family have faced security threats since he ascended to the federal bench in 2019, and those threats have intensified ahead of the abortion pill ruling.

Before and after the Friday phone call with lawyers, The Washington Post repeatedly called and emailed Kacsmaryk’s chambers seeking information about it, but received no response. Kacsmaryk’s chambers also did not respond to a request that reporters be allowed to join the call.

Kacsmaryk was nominated by President Donald Trump and is known for his conservative views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion.

By waiting to publicize the time of the hearing, Kacsmaryk and his staff could make it difficult for the public, the media and others to travel to the courthouse in Amarillo. The remote, deeply conservative city has few direct flights except from Dallas or San Antonio and is at least a four-hour drive from any of the state’s major, heavily-Democratic cities. Still, over 150 abortion rights advocates gathered there on a Saturday in mid-February to voice their support for abortion pills.

I noted this lawsuit when it was filed. There’s been a metric crap-ton of analysis and punditry and increasingly dire warnings about this lawsuit and the pernicious effect of court-shopping, and I’ll leave it to you to google around for all the screaming into the void you can handle. It’s possible that this maneuver means that Kacsmaryk has at least a dim idea that his actions have the potential to cause a massive shitstorm. It also may just be that he doesn’t care to deal with the media and he has the power to make his wishes come true. Either way, brace yourselves.

UPDATE: Chris Geidner has more.

Posted in Legal matters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

More on spending less on court-appointed lawyers

Seems like a good start.

A Houston Chronicle investigation into how some private attorneys earn enormous sums to represent thousands of indigent people accused of crimes in Harris County – at a cost of $60 million to taxpayers last year – is prompting widespread calls for reform, as well as a county audit of the program.

The 10 highest-paid private attorneys each pocketed more than $450,000 last year, with one pulling in $1 million. Dozens of attorneys – not all among the highest-paid – took on far more cases than county-employed public defenders are allowed. Their caseloads also exceeded state-recommended limits.

“Obviously, these numbers are huge,” said Jed Silverman, president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association. “It’s wrong, it’s offensive to your average person off the street, and it calls into question whether or not these accused people are getting effective assistance of counsel.”

Here’s a look at what officials are doing to address the issue, and other proposed solutions.

Late last month, the Harris County Auditor told county leaders that his office “started a review of court-appointed attorneys’ fees.” Errika Perkins, who also works in the office, told the Chronicle that officials hope to examine everything from the attorneys’ billing practices to whether they’re visiting clients in jail.

“Our goal is to be able to analyze the different hours attorneys spent on different aspects of the case,” Perkins said, adding that she expects the audit will take at least a couple of months before results can be publicly released.

Two of the county’s Democratic commissioners, Rodney Ellis and Leslie Briones, separately are pushing for an expansion of the public defender’s office, which employed about 130 lawyers to represent indigent clients last year.

But Silverman and others say those changes won’t be enough.

“Everybody involved has to double down” to fix the problem, said State Sen. John Whitmire, who also is running for mayor of Houston. “There’s no justice for victims, defendants, or society … the whole damn thing’s broken.”

For their part, judges and county staff say they’re trying to improve the situation by increasing attorney pay and mentorship opportunities to entice more attorneys to take cases. Harris County courts have faced so much turmoil in recent years due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Hurricane Harvey that many attorneys stopped taking appointments, forcing judges to overload some of the ones that remain.

See here for the background. First, I’m glad to see that there is publicly-expressed support for increasing the budget of the Harris County Public Defender Office, which makes all kinds of sense. The story suggests that the max case load the PDO could handle is about half of the indigent cases, which would require slightly more than doubling their current budget. The story mentions other things that the county is doing now, but it’s not clear to me what things that it should be doing that it isn’t or hasn’t brought up. I don’t know what the particulars are that Silverman and Whitmire – who obviously would have some skin in the game as Houston Mayor, even though this is a county matter – have in mind. Be that as it may, I believe this situation will look very different in a couple of years. That should be the goal, anyway.

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

Weekend link dump for March 12

“If this were any other state, Presley might arguably be an outright favorite to win this race. The problem, of course, is that he happens to be running in Mississippi, which has among the highest levels of racial polarization in the nation.”

“Japan discovered it has 7,000 more islands than previously thought thanks to advanced survey mapping technology.”

“That is because the lab leak is still missing the key element of the U.N. cholera story that made it more than just a bunch of rumors: an actual, coherent theory of the case that could be refuted or confirmed.”

“In other words, it means that the music I think of as cool is, now, officially, no longer cool. It has become so wholly and officially un-cool that it can now be played as harmless background noise in a Big Box store in the white western suburbs of Philadelphia.”

“So, this isn’t One Weird Trick to solve it, it’s a reminder to neurodivergent folks that a lot of politeness is a performance of a lie so that people, especially white people, can survive cognitive dissonance and pretend nothing is bad if we all just use our company manners.”

What the dogs of Chernobyl can teach us.

RIP, Judy Heumann, renowned disability rights activist.

“How Attacks Against Obamacare Turned Into Tools to Protect Abortion Access”.

Peak TV was awesome. Trough TV, not so much.

Is your tap water turning you gay? Spoiler alert: No, it is not.

RIP, Gary Rossington, guitarist and last surviving founding member of Lynyrd Skynyrd.

“Toblerone is no longer Swiss enough to feature the Matterhorn on its packaging”.

RIP, Barbara Everitt Bryant, first woman to lead the US Census Bureau.

Keeping track of time on the moon is trickier than you might think.

“The real lesson of the 2022 election is that the country is ready to move on from extremists and traitors. And yet they’re going right back to it because it’s who they are.”

“The World Baseball Classic, right now, is a half-measure, and most of its problems can be traced to it being played in March. You’re not getting the best players, you’re not getting the biggest audience, in March. By moving half the event into the summer, you can address those problems and start the Classic on its way to becoming what MLB wants it to be: baseball’s World Cup.”

RIP, Lee Ellis, former Houston restauranteur. I can attest that both the chicken and the donuts at Lee’s Fried Chicken and Donuts, which was in my neighborhood, were very good.

“The bewildering descent of Scott Adams and Dilbert“.

“We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can’t wait. I hate him passionately.”

RIP, Ian Falconer, stage designer and author/illustrator of the Olivia children’s books, which our family dearly loved.

RIP, Chaim Topol, actor best known for playing Tevye in the stage and screen versions of Fiddler on the Roof.

Three reasons to believe that COVID evolved naturally, not in a lab”.

“Pfizer ready to launch RSV vaccines for older adults, pregnant women in US, Europe”.

RIP, Robert Blake, actor best known for the TV show Baretta and for being acquitted of the murder of his wife.

Lock him up.

A great story about Malachy McCourt – author, actor, raconteur and man-about-town – written by one of my high school classmates.

Posted in Blog stuff | Tagged | Comments Off on Weekend link dump for March 12

The next frontier in forced birth litigation

This is truly wild, and potentially very scary.

A Texas man is suing three women under the wrongful death statute, alleging that they assisted his ex-wife in terminating her pregnancy, the first such case brought since the state’s near-total ban on abortion last summer.

Marcus Silva is represented by Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general and architect of the state’s prohibition on abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, and state Rep. Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park. The lawsuit is filed in state court in Galveston County, where Silva lives.

Silva alleges that his now ex-wife learned she was pregnant in July 2022, the month after the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and conspired with two friends to illegally obtain abortion-inducing medication and terminate the pregnancy.

The friends texted with the woman, sending her information about Aid Access, an international group that provides abortion-inducing medication through the mail, the lawsuit alleges. Text messages filed as part of the complaint seem to show they instead found a way to acquire the medication in Houston, where the two women lived.

A third woman delivered the medication, the lawsuit alleges, and text messages indicate that the wife self-managed an abortion at home.

The defendants could not immediately be reached for comment. Silva’s wife filed for divorce in May 2022, court records show, two months before the alleged abortion. The divorce was finalized in February. They share two daughters, the lawsuit said.

[…]

The lawsuit alleges that assisting a self-managed abortion qualifies as murder under state law, which would allow Silva to sue under the wrongful death statute. The women have not been criminally charged. Texas’ abortion laws specifically exempt the pregnant person from prosecution; the ex-wife is not named as a defendant.

The legality of abortion in Texas in July 2022 is murky. The state’s trigger law, which makes performing abortion a crime punishable by up to life in prison, did not go into effect until August. But conservative state leaders, including Cain and Attorney General Ken Paxton, have claimed that the state’s pre-Roe abortion bans, which punish anyone who performs or “furnishes the means” for an abortion by up to five years in prison, went back into effect the day Roe v. Wade was overturned in June.

The legal status of these pre-Roe statutes remains a contentious question. In 2004, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that those laws were “repealed by implication,” which U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman reaffirmed in a recent ruling. But Cain and others have repeatedly argued that the Legislature restored those laws into effect with recent abortion legislation. This issue went before the Texas Supreme Court, but the case was dismissed before a final ruling.

In 2021, the Legislature passed a law making it a state jail felony to provide abortion-inducing medication except under extremely specific circumstances.

Joanna Grossman, a law professor at SMU Dedman School of Law, said this lawsuit is “absurd and inflammatory.” Since the pregnant patient is protected from prosecution, there is no underlying cause of action to bring a wrongful death suit in a self-managed abortion, she said.

“But this is going to cause such fear and chilling that it doesn’t matter whether [Mitchell] is right,” Grossman said. “Who is going to want to help a friend find an abortion if there is some chance that their text messages are going to end up in the news? And maybe they’re going to get sued, and maybe they’re going to get arrested, and it’s going to get dropped eventually, but in the meantime, they will have been terrified.”

But it’s possible this lawsuit could get traction, said Charles “Rocky” Rhodes, a law professor at South Texas College of Law.

“It’s scary to think that you can be sued for significant damages for helping a friend undertake acts that help her have even a self-medicated abortion,” Rhodes said. “Obviously, the allegations would have to be proven, but there is potentially merit to this suit under Texas’ abortion laws as they exist now.”

Mitchell and Cain intend to also name the manufacturer of the abortion pill as a defendant, once it is identified.

“Anyone involved in distributing or manufacturing abortion pills will be sued into oblivion,” Cain said in a statement.

At first I thought this was an SB8 lawsuit, but it’s not. This is a lawsuit under the “wrongful death” laws, which would make this a lot broader, not to mention not having a $10K cap on how much you can sue for. Among other things, if the plaintiff wins, it would legally establish that a third party can claim an injury when a woman has an abortion. If the alleged father can do that – and bear in mind, the father could be a rapist or an abuser – then who’s to say that a would-be grandparent couldn’t make a similar claim. There are free speech implications as well, if even discussing abortion with a pregnant woman could land you in legal jeopardy. There’s some existing litigation out there about the First Amendment rights of abortion funds, but nothing has been decided yet. All this may sound far-fetched and overly dramatic, but look at the lawyers leading this charge, and what Briscoe Cain – who has said before that he doesn’t just want to make abortion illegal, he wants to make it “unthinkable” – is saying. If anything, I’m not being dark and paranoid enough.

What happens from here is hard to say, but one thing for sure is that these three women are going to be facing many thousands of dollars in legal bills, which among other things may put pressure on them to settle. Again, I’m quite certain that’s all part of the plan. This needs to be much bigger news, and not just in Texas. I’d really like to see national groups and national political figures make a big deal out of this, and not just for fundraising purposes, except to assist the defendants. This is what SCOTUS has unleashed on us, and it’s what these zealots want. We can’t afford to give an inch. The Chron has more.

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

Court blocks phony “defunding” claim again

From the inbox:

A Travis County District Court temporarily blocked Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar’s determination that Harris County defunded the Precinct 5 Constable’s office in violation of state law. The order means the Comptroller’s determination as to Harris County’s budget is currently legally ineffective; he’s prohibited from reinstating it.

“I’m glad the courts are blocking Comptroller Hegar from his misguided attacks on Harris County,” said Harris County Attorney Christian D. Menefee. “Comptroller Hegar violated the law. It’s clear. We’re prepared to fight this in the courts until he does the right thing by the people of Harris County and withdraws his determination. We’re seeing a pattern of state officials trying to get in the business of disrupting Harris County government to score political points. We are not going to stand for it; the five million residents of Harris County deserve better.”

Today’s ruling blocks Comptroller Hegar’s determination that Harris County violated Chapter 120. He made that determination by taking the Precinct 5 budget for the County’s 2022 short fiscal year, annualizing it, and then reasoning that because that annualized number was greater than Precinct 5’s budget for fiscal year 2023, the county violated Chapter 120. That is legally incorrect, even applying the Comptroller’s own math. Chapter 120 requires that if a county’s overall budget decreases from one budget year to the next, a prohibited funding reduction occurs only if the police agency’s share of the county’s overall budget has decreased over that same period. Harris County did not violate that standard because using the Comptroller’s math, Harris County’s overall budget decreases from his annualized version of the 2022 short fiscal year budget to the County’s fiscal year 2023 budget, while Precinct 5’s share of the County’s budget increases.

The next hearing is set for March 23, 2023. A copy of the county’s lawsuit is available here.

See here and here for the background. There’s a Chron story, but it’s mostly this press release plus some others. As was the case the last time around, it looks like this flimsy pretextual claim by the Comptroller is going to get stopped. Hopefully he’ll concede and withdraw the claim like he did the last time. And then hopefully he won’t go for a three-peat. Hopefully.

Posted in Legal matters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Court blocks phony “defunding” claim again

Muskville, Texas

What did Bastrop do to deserve this?

Elon Musk is planning to build his own town on part of thousands of acres of newly purchased pasture and farmland outside the Texas capital, according to deeds and other land records and people familiar with the project.

In meetings with landowners and real-estate agents, Mr. Musk and employees of his companies have described his vision as a sort of Texas utopia along the Colorado River, where his employees could live and work.

Executives at the Boring Co., Mr. Musk’s tunnel operation, have discussed and researched incorporating the town in Bastrop County, about 35 miles from Austin, which would allow Mr. Musk to set some regulations in his own municipality and expedite his plans, according to people familiar with Mr. Musk’s projects.

They say Mr. Musk and his top executives want his Austin-area employees, including workers at Boring, electric-car maker Tesla Inc. and space and exploration company SpaceX, to be able to live in new homes with below-market rents.

The planned town is adjacent to Boring and SpaceX facilities now under construction. The site already includes a group of modular homes, a pool, an outdoor sports area and a gym, according to Facebook photos and people familiar with the town. Signs hanging from poles read “welcome, snailbrook, tx, est. 2021.”

Mr. Musk, his former girlfriend, who is the singer Grimes, Kanye West and Mr. West’s architectural designer discussed several times last year what a Musk town might look like, according to people familiar with the discussions. Those talks included broad ideas and some visual mock-ups, according to one of the people, but haven’t resulted in concrete plans.

Representatives for Mr. West, who goes by Ye, and Grimes, whose real name is Claire Boucher, couldn’t be reached for comment.

Under Texas law, a town needs at least 201 residents before it can apply to incorporate, then approval from a county judge. Bastrop County hasn’t received an application from Mr. Musk or any of his entities, a spokeswoman said.

Chap Ambrose, a computer programmer who lives on a hilltop overlooking the new Boring and SpaceX facilities, said he believes “they want it to be secret. They want to do things before anyone knows really what’s happening.”

Mr. Ambrose has been seeking information from Boring and the county about the company’s research and testing of its tunneling machines and how that might affect groundwater and wells in the area.

He has sent drones over the area seeking clues to other structures Boring and SpaceX are building and what they plan to produce in their factories. Drone footage and YouTube videos he posted show the construction of tunnels between the Boring and SpaceX parcels that run beneath a public road.

[…]

Last June, Robert Pugh, then Bastrop County’s director of engineering, complained in an email to Clara Beckett, the county commissioner in charge of planning, that staffers had been “regularly hounded” by employees and contractors of Boring and Starlink, a SpaceX unit. They want the county to “expedite and approve permit applications that are incomplete and not in compliance” with the county’s regulations, Mr. Pugh wrote.

Mr. Pugh left his job that same month and didn’t respond to requests for comment. Ms. Beckett didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The planned town would sit in Bastrop County. An entity called Gapped Bass LLC, of which state records show Boring’s Mr. Davis serving as president, now owns more than 200 acres there, all purchased within the past two years. SpaceX has purchased about 60 more acres. The land was previously owned by longtime ranchers and other Texas families.

As of last year, Boring employees could apply for a home with rents starting at about $800 a month for a two- or three-bedroom, according to an advertisement for employees viewed by the Journal and people familiar with the plans. If an employee leaves or is fired, he or she would have to vacate the house within 30 days, those people said.

The median rent in Bastrop, Texas, is about $2,200 a month, according to real-estate listing company Zillow Group Inc.

Executives have discussed opening the houses to all employees of Mr. Musk’s companies.

Gapped Bass has filed paperwork with Bastrop County to build 110 more homes in the planned town, which it calls “Project Amazing.”

Bastrop County officials approved street names such as “Boring Boulevard,” “Waterjet Way” and “Cutterhead Crossing,” according to county meeting documents.

Boring plans to convert a home on the property into a Montessori school for as many as 15 students, according to correspondence between a Boring company official and a county government employee.

See here for some background. Believe it or not, there’s a lot more in this story. WSJ articles are usually paywalled but the link I got for this let me right in, so if you can go read the rest. The Austin Chronicle has a summary, and contains this bit of interest, some of which is farther down in the story:

In meetings with landowners, Musk and his employees describe his vision as a utopia along the Colorado River where Musk’s employees can live and work.

Of course a “utopia” or “paradise” centered on the Colorado probably doesn’t bring to mind images of hundreds of thousands of gallons of wastewater being poured into said river, but that is evidently what Musk and his people envision. Musk-owned tunneling company the Boring Co. has applied to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for permission to discharge up to 140,000 gallons of industrial treated wastewater into the Colorado every day.

That’s how Bastrop local Chap Ambrose, whose house overlooks Musk’s property, found out about this utopian vision – a letter from TCEQ informing him of his neighbor’s wastewater request and of his own ability to publicly comment on the request. Led by Ambrose, a grassroots coalition of Musk’s neighbors called Keep Bastrop Boring hosted a meeting March 8 at the Bastrop Public Library to share their research, and their plans to show up at the TCEQ’s public meeting to discuss the Boring permit 7pm, March 21 at the Hampton Inn in Bastrop. (Anyone can comment.)

This is just the latest in not-helpful ideas Musk has presented in Central Texas. In April last year, we reported that ten Austin city employees flew out to Las Vegas to meet with representatives of the Boring Co. in relation to potential tunnels needed for Project Connect, although Boring Co. has no experience with public transit systems. That communication seemed to fizzle out, as have the many projects Boring Co. has attempted with cities nationwide.

Putting aside whatever animus I may have for Elon Musk, I don’t want anyone dumping 140,000 gallons of industrial treated wastewater into the Colorado River every day. I hope that request gets denied. And all respect to Chap Ambrose for Keep Bastrop Boring. May he succeed in his quest, at least as far as this goes. Daily Kos has more.

Posted in The great state of Texas | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Chron story on the anti-Open Beaches bill

Glad to see it.

A bill that would reshape future legal battles over Texas’ public beach boundaries is stirring backlash from advocates and former state leaders, who claim the proposal would give beachfront property owners the green light to vacuum up pieces of the state’s public beaches.

Senate Bill 434, filed last month by state Sen. Mayes Middleton of Galveston, would give private property owners the upper hand in legal disputes over public beach access between their residences and the Gulf of Mexico.

Such disputes are governed by Texas’ Open Beaches Act, which has long established the public’s right to use privately owned beach area extending from the vegetation line — the beach’s inland boundary, where sand gives way to foliage — to what’s known as the “mean high tide line” along the water.

Under current law, property owners can only scrap a public easement in front of their property — thus blocking the public from passing through it — if they offer legal proof that the area shouldn’t be covered by the easement.

Middleton’s bill would upend the law, shifting the legal “burden of proof” to the state or anyone looking to establish that a public easement exists on someone’s beachfront property. Critics say the change would embolden property owners to fence off beach area long accessed by the public — access that could only be regained through legal action.

Middleton did not respond to a request for comment. He defended his legislation in a statement to the Galveston County Daily News last month, arguing it would “not in any way take away our open beaches or limit them.”

“Right now, all over the state of Texas, if the state claims your land as theirs — then they have to prove it. But, sadly, on beachfront property, if Texas claims the property as theirs, it’s presumed to be the state’s — unless the landowner is able to refute the rebuttable presumption,” Middleton said. “My bill is a beachfront private property rights bill that makes beachfront land treated like land in the rest of the state and changes the presumption so that the state must prove it is state lands and the landowner no longer has the burden of proof.”

See here for the argument against, as presented by former Land Commissioners Dewhurst, Patterson, and Mauro. I have no reason to trust Sen. Middleton on this, and that’s even without me already being a steadfast Open Beaches Act supporter. I don’t know what the odds are of this bill passing, but I would take it seriously, as it’s the kind of thing that may get by because no one gives it all that much thought. To that end, the sunshine may help. Reform Austin has more.

Posted in That's our Lege | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chron story on the anti-Open Beaches bill

Gilbert Garcia is in for Mayor

Widely expected.

Gilbert Garcia

Gilbert Garcia, the bond investor and former Metro chairman, is running for mayor, he told the Chronicle Friday.

Garcia’s candidacy has been an open secret in Houston politics for months, if not years. His name has appeared on most early polls of the field, and he has participated in candidate endorsement screenings even before launching his bid. Garcia said he plans to file a form appointing a campaign treasurer with the city secretary’s office before 5 p.m. Friday.

He joins an increasingly crowded field that includes state Sen. John Whitmire, former Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins, former City Councilmember Amanda Edwards, attorney Lee Kaplan and Councilmember Robert Gallegos. Rumors have intensified in recent months that U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee may enter the race, as well. The election is Nov. 8.

Garcia, 59, is managing partner at Garcia Hamilton & Associates, a wealth management firm specializing in bonds. The Corpus Christi native went to Yale University and then staked out a career in finance, joining his current firm in 2002. It since has grown from managing about $350 million in assets to more than $20 billion, he said.

Then-Mayor Annise Parker appointed Garcia, who was her campaign chair in 2009, as chairman of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, an agency beset by ethics scandals and shaky finances at the time. Garcia said he knew nothing about transit at the time, but that was the point: Parker was appointing him to “shake up” the organization.

Along with CEO George Greanias, Garcia branded the agency a “new Metro,” stabilizing its fiscal outlook, reorganizing its pension system and increasing transparency by posting its check register online.  He helped oversee a redesign of the agency’s local bus routes and the opening of three light rail segments, though the latter did not come without challenges.

There were long delays in work on the rail lines, and he angered many East End residents when the agency had to go back on its promise to build an underpass where the Green Line intersects with Harrisburg. That dispute included sparring with Gallegos, who represents the East End and now is one of his mayoral opponents.

Garcia’s pitch to mayoral voters is that City Hall now is in need of a similar shake-up. He cites separate federal investigations into the city Health Department and a mayoral aide, the public accusation of corruption by the former housing director, a lingering pay dispute with firefighters and a shaky financial outlook.

“I read the news like everyone else, and I have seen so many challenges that are challenges, frankly, of our own making,” Garcia said. “Those are all things that I think can be solved or done better, because those are not things that are part of the economic environment… I would do a Metro re-do for the city.”

[…]

Renée Cross, senior executive director at the University of Houston’s Hobby School of Public Affairs, said Garcia will make a credible candidate, but he will have to overcome his lack of electoral experience, which will include building name recognition among voters who do not closely follow city politics.

“He’s well-liked on both sides of the aisle,” Cross said. “Now, whether he can go up against experienced candidates like John Whitmire, we’ll have to see, because he’s never run for office.”

Like Gallegos, who announced last month, Garcia is seeking to be Houston’s first Latino mayor. Cross said she thinks the two will pull from different bases, and she would not be surprised if Garcia tries to pull in more conservative voters.

As the story notes, Garcia was a candidate in all but official announcement well before this. I’ll say that I thought he was an excellent Metro board chair – I interviewed him twice, along with then-Board member Christof Spieler, back in the day – and I like him personally. He has some fundraising ground to make up, and as with everyone else in this large field he’s going to have to differentiate himself and get voters’ attention. This is going to be a very busy year.

Posted in Election 2023 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gilbert Garcia is in for Mayor

Oklahoma rejects recreational marijuana

Oh, well. At least you can still gamble there.

Oklahoma voters rejected a state question Tuesday to allow for the recreational use of marijuana, following a late blitz of opposition from faith leaders, law enforcement and prosecutors.

Oklahoma would have become the 22nd state to legalize adult use of cannabis and join conservative states like Montana and Missouri that have approved similar proposals in recent years. Many conservative states have also rejected the idea, including Arkansas, North Dakota and South Dakota last year.

Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt and many of the state’s GOP legislators, including nearly every Republican senator, opposed the idea. Former Republican Gov. Frank Keating, an ex-FBI agent, and Terri White, the former head of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, led the “no” campaign.

“We’re pleased the voters have spoken,” said Pat McFerron, a Republican political strategist who ran the opposition campaign. “We think this sends a clear signal that voters are not happy with the recreational nature of our medicinal system. We also think it shows voters recognize the criminal aspects, as well as the need for addressing mental health needs of the state.”

The “no” side was outspent more than 20-to-1, with supporters of the initiative spending more than $4.9 million, compared to about $219,000 against, last-minute campaign finance reports show.

State Question 820, the result of a signature gathering drive last year, was the only item on the statewide ballot, and early results showed heavy opposition in rural areas.

“We don’t want a stoned society,” Keating said Monday, flanked by district attorneys and law enforcement officers from across the state.

The proposal, if passed, would have allowed anyone over the age of 21 to purchase and possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana, plus concentrates and marijuana-infused products. Recreational sales would have been subjected to a 15% excise tax on top of the standard sales tax. The excise tax would be used to help fund local municipalities, the court system, public schools, substance abuse treatment and the state’s general revenue fund.

As the story notes, Oklahoma allows medical marijuana and has had a pretty good experience with it, which was one of the catalysts for this effort. I saw an AP story on Monday that had hyped this vote, but obviously it didn’t turn out as supporters wanted it to. That’s unfortunate for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that it would make Texas even more of an outlier in its resistance to reforming its punitive old pot laws. Guess we’ll have to find some other motivation for that. Anyway, sorry Sooners. At least it’s a shorter drive from where you are to Colorado. CNN and the Dallas Observer have more.

(In the spirit of full disclosure, had this measure passed I had planned to title the post about it “Toke-lahoma”. It is everybody’s loss that I am not able to do this.)

Posted in Election 2023 | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

HISD ends lawsuit against TEA

A formality at this point.

The Houston Independent School District board voted on Thursday night to end its lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency, effectively ending the district’s legal fight against an attempted state takeover. 

The motion passed with support of eight of the nine trustees following a brief closed session. Trustee Kathy Blueford-Daniels, who represents District II which includes Wheatley High, voted against the measure.

Superintendent Millard House II said he does not know what the board’s decision will mean for the state’s takeover effort because that agency has made no announcement or decision.

“That was a board decision in an effort to get to the table to have conversations with TEA,” he said in an interview following the meeting. “There hasn’t been conversation.”

Dani Hernandez, board president, said the board remains committed to students and student outcomes.

“We are now at the point where it is time for us to move forward,” she said during the meeting. “It is in our students’ and our employees’ best interest for us to end this lawsuit between HISD and TEA and navigate and build relationships between all the parties. … We look forward to bringing both organizations to the table soon for the best interest of children.”

The district is withdrawing from the lawsuit to “end further expenditure of district resources, as there is no further legal recourse,” according to the motion.

[…]

In theory the district could file for a rehearing and continue the legal battle. HISD did request more time to file a motion for a rehearing in late January, but never ended up following through on it.

Given the Texas Supreme Court decision, the board’s decision to stop putting resources toward the lawsuit makes sense, said attorney Christopher L. Tritico, who has represented three Houston-area districts — North Forest, Beaumont and La Marque — in takeover hearings.

“A rehearing is one in a million, and it’s just not worth it. I think they are making a prudent decision in public funds at this point in recognizing the decision is over,” Tritico said. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that they aren’t conceding that they think the commissioner is right, they just don’t have any legal maneuvering.”

I agree with the Board’s actions here. The one trustee who voted against was Kathy Blueford-Daniels, whose district contains Wheatley. I can’t blame her for that.

We have reached the weekend and still no word from the TEA. According to Campos, “there was supposed to be a meeting in Austin yesterday that had to be postponed”. No rush, y’all, take all the time you need. The Press has more.

Posted in Legal matters, School days | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on HISD ends lawsuit against TEA

The whistleblowers’ un-settlement

Plot twist!

A crook any way you look

The whistleblowers who sued Attorney General Ken Paxton say they’re headed back to court unless he agrees that the Legislature must approve their proposed $3.3 million settlement before the current legislative session ends in May.

They are the four former aides to Paxton who allege he fired them in retaliation for reporting him to federal authorities for bribery and abuse of office. Paxton has denied all wrongdoing. Their lawyers said Wednesday they were “forced” to file a motion in an Austin appellate court Wednesday asking for the case to resume.

In a joint statement, the lawyers said a deadline of the end of session for payment was the “fundamental premise upon which they asked us to negotiate in the first place.”

“So we’ll go back to court, where the taxpayers will end up paying more to defend (the Office of the Attorney General) than they would to settle this case,” the lawyers said. “We would still settle the case if the Legislature approved the payment this session, but we cannot and did not agree to give OAG the benefit of a settlement while the whistleblowers wait in perpetuity for legislative approval.”

The attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some members of the Legislature, including Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, have expressed opposition to approving the settlement. Earlier this month, Phelan said in an interview with CBS DFW that he did not think it was a “proper use of taxpayer dollars.” Taxpayers are already on the hook for $600,000 in legal fees for Paxton’s defense.

[…]

The case now returns to the Texas Supreme Court, where it landed after Paxton appealed in December 2021 a decision by the 3rd Court of Appeals that upheld a lower court’s finding that the state’s whistleblower protection law should have prevented the employees from being fired.

The all-Republican court had not yet decided whether it would grant the case when the whistleblowers and Paxton asked them to hold off on any decisions while the parties finalized their settlement agreement. The court could decide to grant or deny at any time; it is not subject to a deadline.

In addition to the $3.3 million payment, the settlement, which the parties announced last month, would have required Paxton to remove a news release from his website that is critical of the employees. He also would have had to state in the agreement that he “accepts that plaintiffs acted in a manner that they thought was right and apologizes for referring to them as ‘rogue employees.'”

See here, here, and here for some background. The Trib adds some details.

The multimillion-dollar settlement, announced last month, would give back pay to the four former employees and would include an apology from Paxton as well as other concessions. But the agreement needs to be approved by state lawmakers, who have expressed an unwillingness to use taxpayer dollars to settle Paxton’s case. At the request of the parties in January, the Texas Supreme Court put the whistleblower case on pause while the two sides looked to finalize the deal. But without a deadline, the case could be on pause indefinitely, attorneys for the former employees said on Wednesday.

“Sadly, we have not been able to reach a final settlement because [the Office of the Attorney General] will not agree to include in the formal agreement a deadline for the legislature to approve funding this session, even though that was the fundamental premise upon which they asked us to negotiate in the first place,” the attorneys said in a statement. “So we’ll go back to court, where the taxpayers will end up paying more to defend OAG than they would to settle this case.”

Paxton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has denied wrongdoing.

Attorneys for the former employees said they would still settle the case if lawmakers approved the $3.3 million settlement this session.

“But we cannot and did not agree to give [the Office of the Attorney General] the benefit of a settlement while the whistleblowers wait in perpetuity for legislative approval,” they wrote.

The fired employees’ attorneys have urged lawmakers to approve the settlement, but its funding looks bleak after top legislators, including House Speaker Dade Phelan, came out against the use of state funds to settle the case. The Legislature’s top budget writers did not include the settlement in their first draft of bills to resolve miscellaneous legal claims.

In a filing to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, attorneys for the former employees said the attorney general’s office has told them verbally that they have put the whistleblowers in a “gotcha position.” If lawmakers do not approve funding for the settlement by the end of this legislative session on May 29, the attorney general’s office has said the whistleblower case should remain on pause until the next legislative session in 2025. If it is not approved again, the filing reads, the attorney general’s office has said the case should remain on pause until the following session in 2027.

“And so on in perpetuity. [The Office of Attorney General] tells Respondents the case will never resume; they have given up their claims forever, even if legislative approval is not forthcoming,” the filing reads. “[The Office of Attorney General] thus reaps all benefits of a settlement, and [the former employees] achieve none.”

In written communications, the fired employees’ attorneys say Paxton’s office has been “craftier,” arguing that it is still researching what would happen if the Legislature refuses to approve the settlement and will not address that potential outcome until it happens.

The fired employees’ attorneys blasted both positions as “preposterous,” arguing that they would have never agreed to put the case on pause indefinitely or for a lengthy time period.

The motion to pause the case — which was requested, drafted and filed by the attorney general’s office with agreement by the fired employees — was “intended to briefly postpone” any potential ruling while the two sides sought legislative approval for the $3.3 million settlement. But attorneys for the fired employees say Paxton’s refusal to set a deadline is preventing the two sides from completing the settlement agreement while at the same time not letting their case against him move forward.

Couple things. First, let’s remember that SCOTx was going to rule on the question of whether Paxton could be sued at all under the Texas Whistleblower Act. Paxton had argued that he could not be sued under that law because he’s not public employee, because elected officials don’t count under that law. By asking SCOTx to resume their deliberation on that question, the four plaintiffs are risking that their answer will be to rule in Paxton’s favor and toss the lawsuit altogether. And even if they win on that question, it just means that the lawsuit can go back to a district court and be heard on its merits. Which, again, they could lose, or they could get a lesser amount awarded to them. And the whole thing will then have to go through the appeals process, because of course Paxton will fight it for as long as he’s in office, and the verdict could get overturned or the award could be reduced, and the whole thing could take years. Whatever else you may think about their case and the initial settlement, these guys are taking a substantial risk by doing this.

But you can see why they’re willing to take that risk. Paxton, who has always been able to turn a bad situation of his own making into an advantage, is using the Lege’s understandable unwillingness to pay for his sins as an indefinite stalling tactic. As things stand now, he has zero incentive to take any action. The case is frozen in amber. And even if SCOTx ultimately rules that the lawsuit can proceed, if there’s one other thing (besides criming) that Paxton is good at, it’s delaying legal reckonings. Who knows how long he could draw this out, assuming he remains in office?

All of which suggests a fairly easy way out for SCOTx, if they want to take it. They can rule that the Lege doesn’t have to apportion any money to pay the settlement, and let Paxton pay for it out of whatever budget the Lege sees fit to give him. This is of course what I have been arguing they should do, as it is the most fair and just solution at this point, so I’m a little biased. But, you know, it really is a good solution – it allows the whistleblowers to get their back pay and their apology, it guards against a much larger potential verdict while also not putting the public on the hook, and it makes Paxton bear the brunt of the financial penalty. It might damage the AG office’s ability to do its job, but that’s just too bad. This is what happens when you put a crook in charge of law enforcement. I hope SCOTx comes to the proper conclusion and saves us all a multi-year saga.

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

Wheatley’s fate

We may learn today of the TEA’s intentions with HISD. Whatever does happen, let’s remember that in the end this will affect a lot of people, and some of them are not happy with the position they’ve been put in.

Samuel Ollison, a junior at Phillis Wheatley High School, already has started working on his back-up plan.

He spends his free time looking into schools he should attend senior year because Houston ISD may be taken over by the Texas Education Agency at any moment, and he has heard rumors his school may close.

“I’m nervous, honestly,” Ollison said. “They say my school is the No. 1 factor in why TEA is taking over HISD …We just need to do better at this school because I really don’t want Wheatley to get shut down, or for the TEA to take over.”

It’s an uncertain time for students at Wheatley High School, as the 96-year-old Fifth Ward campus continues to be thrust in the spotlight for its multiple failing accountability grades that puts the district at risk of losing its superintendent and elected board. Meanwhile, rumors are circulating about what will come of a possible state intervention, leaving parents and students alike in fear of the school’s closure.

Ollison grew more concerned when read an article in which Mayor Sylvester Turner said Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath told him he has two options — appoint a board of managers or close Wheatley high school. Other public figures since have made similar comments.

State code indicates that closing a school is an option, but the TEA never has stated that it plans to. Morath has spent years pursuing the other option — appointing a board of managers, which temporarily was blocked by an injunction. However, the TEA declined to comment on the mayor’s remarks or if intends to close Wheatley.

[…]

Throughout the years, the school’s enrollment began to drop, and subsequently the dollars tied to that enrollment. By 1976, the school was in the bottom 12% for reading scores, according to a 1978 Texas Monthly article. In 1995, the Fifth Ward school had the highest dropout rate and lowest math score of the high schools in the Houston ISD.

From 2014 to 2017, it earned an “improvement required” rating from the state, and in 2019, under a revamped accountability system, the school earned an ‘F.’ Ratings were paused in 2018 for Hurricane Harvey and in 2020 and 2021 for COVID.

In 2022, the school earned a ‘C,’ but some argue that the standards were lowered.

Either way, the previous streak of failing ratings, in part, triggered a takeover battle that has been slowly making its way through the courts.

Joseph Williams took the helm of the school as principal in 2018, not long after the district was put on alert for a potential takeover. When Williams first took the job — he knew “time was of the essence.” His first priority was to improve the school’s culture and the morale.

“In some cases, there was apathy with some of the scholars,” Williams said. “We just wanted to revive the spirit. When you just keep hearing your name and its associated with this negative thing, it can kind of wear on you.”

He tightened up the attendance policy, restructured the classroom layout to make sure grades were grouped together, allowing administrators to better monitor students.

They implemented an online merit system, where teachers could award students points for good attendance or high scores. They could cash in the points they earned for snacks or a free hoodie. The school saw some modest improvements on test scores and earned a C for its most recent accountability rating. This is a point many education advocates, lawmakers, and critics of state intervention make when talking about the potential takeover.

There’s more in the story from current students and their parents, who are trying to figure out what their options would be if Wheatley is closed. I don’t think that will accomplish anything positive, especially with the school on a better path now. You know my feelings on this, so I’ll just leave this here. And I hope that tomorrow, and the next day and the day after that, I don’t have to write about what happens next in a post-takeover world.

Posted in School days | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Ashby Highrise 2.0 gets a permit

It’s happening!

Did you miss me?

For years a controversial proposal to build a high rise in the wealthy enclave of Boulevard Oaks appeared to be dead — a lesson in how land-use battles can erupt even in a city with virtually no zoning.

But after six years of sitting on the proposal — and the vacant, proposed site at Ashby and Bisonnet sitting dormant — the owners, Hunt Cos. of El Paso, last spring resurrected efforts to build the tower. They brought on a new development team, Dallas-based Street Lights Residential, to create a scaled-down version of the high-rise, now called The Langley, that they hope would win over neighbors who had fiercely opposed the earlier project dubbed The Ashby.

Almost a year after StreetLights filed updated plans with the city, the developer says it is weeks from breaking ground on the 20-story apartment building. The city of Houston granted StreetLights Residential a permit for site work and foundation work Monday, though it still is waiting approval to start vertical construction.

Stephen Meek, developer at Street Lights Residential, said the approved work could begin in early April.

“(The site now) is a brown field that looks like a black eye right at the entry of beautiful neighborhood,” Meek said. “What we’re proposing is bringing something beautiful and something as architecturally significant.”

The spacious units and high-end design of The Langley are aimed at attracting well-heeled empty-nesters, and Meek believes some neighborhood residents would want to live in The Langley if they decide to downsize but want to stay in the area.

Many of the neighbors, however, remain opposed. Several houses around the project site are adorned with bright yellow signs with a menacing carton caricature of a high-rise and the phrase “Tower of Traffic” and “Protect Our Neighborhood” — a nod to past protests against the previous high-rise proposal.

A small group of concerned neighbors have been quietly working to pressure city officials and Street Lights Residential to abide by a 2012 agreement reached between the city of Houston and the site’s owners that set certain parameters for size, traffic, noise and other concerns. (StreetLights rejects, saying it is following the 2012 deal to the letter.)

Neighbors also argue StreetLights should be required to follow updated city ordinances — rather than being built according to laws that were in place at the time Hunt Cos. and Buckhead Investment Partners first applied for building permits in 2007.

As of Tuesday evening, it wasn’t immediately clear if the city’s legal department had determined whether The Langley could be grandfathered.

See here for the background. As the story notes, some residents and neighborhood groups aren’t trying to stop The Langley – I will try to use the new name, but in my heart it will always be the Ashby highrise – but just want it to abide by the new 2012 rules. Which, hey, more power to them. The original 20-story concept never made much sense, but that doesn’t mean that some multi-story building there wouldn’t be a good fit. Could this story finally have a happy ending, or at least a tolerable one, for all? Maybe! Hopefully it won’t take as long to find out.

Posted in Elsewhere in Houston | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments