So that "compromise" voter ID legislation? It's not something its author is going to go to the mat for.
[Rep. Todd] Smith said he is prepared to fight for his plan but added that if the choice is between an Indiana-style photo ID bill or nothing at all, he would vote for a photo ID bill."The reason I take that position," he said, "is it's very clear that my constituents want something done on the security side of elections."
As Todd Hill notes, it was just last month that Smith said "I don't think there is any chance we'll be proposing the Indiana law on the House floor." So much for that! Well, the Lone Star Project did predict in March that Smith would pull the bait and switch. I suppose nobody should be surprised at this.
The State Board of Education strikes again.
The Texas State Board of Education is set to appoint a social studies curriculum "expert" panel that includes absurdly unqualified ideologues who are hostile to public education and argue that laws and public policies should be based on their narrow interpretations of the Bible.TFN has obtained the names of "experts" appointed by far-right state board members. Those panelists will guide the revision of social studies curriculum standards for Texas public schools. They include David Barton of the fundamentalist, Texas-based group WallBuilders, whose degree is in religious education, not the social sciences, and the Rev. Peter Marshall of Peter Marshall Ministries in Massachusetts, who suggests that California wildfires and Hurricane Katrina were divine punishments for tolerance of homosexuality.
The two have argued that the Constitution doesn't protect separation of church and state and hold a variety of other extreme views related to religion, education and government, TFN President Kathy Miller said.
Just read the whole thing, and shake your head in wonder once again at the clown show that is the SBOE. I suppose we should be grateful that the math textbooks aren't up for review or we might be arguing about whether or not pi equals three.
By the way, the confirmation of SBOE Chair Don McLeroy is officially dead, as there are enough votes to block it, and not enough time left in the session to bother having a floor fight. McLeroy will still be on the SBOE, and Governor Perry will just make another recess appointment afterward, so the practical effect is nil. But it's a dishonor that McLeroy richly deserves nonetheless. The Observer has more.
The AusChron has the scoop. Here are the differences between Todd Smith's "compromise" voter ID bill and the Senate-passed SB362.
[Differences include:]
- provisions for voter education on the new ID requirements
- training for poll workers
- a report to the Lege on what demographic groups are affected
- language specifying that there is no guarantee that a provisional ballot will be counted
- the law wouldn't take effect until 2013
- the creation of signature verification committees that would check affidavit signatures against registration records
- the bill would not take effect unless the Lege appropriates $7.5 million to fund voter registration efforts
They report than State Rep. Rafael Anchia is "not impressed", which tells me all I need to know, and that Republican Linda Harper Brown says 2013 is "too late". I continue to hope that this will die a messy death. Keep your fingers crossed.
It may be a bit premature to write its obituary, but not by much.
Sen. Jane Nelson said she is in no rush to push a proposed statewide smoking ban through her Senate Health and Human Services Committee on Tuesday. The remarks came as supporters spent a day lobbying for the measure at the capitol, holding a press conference and filling a committee hearing to standing room only on a House version of the measure"We have a month to go," said Nelson, R-Lewisville, a ban supporter. "It's not like the session ends tomorrow."
The proposals, sponsored by Rep. Myra Crownover, R-Denton, in the House and Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, in the Senate, would ban smoking across Texas, with some exceptions, such as private residences, sections of nursing homes and some clubs. Supporters stress that there is a proven danger in second-hand smoke. Opponents argue it would violate personal liberty.
But Nelson said given the Senate's backlog, she'd rather focus on bills that are more likely to pass and wants the House to move first. Rep. Burt Solomons, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee, where House version of the bill waits for a vote, said he does not support a statewide ban and is yet to gauge committee support.
Ellis said he has the votes to get the bill to the full Senate and has already asked Nelson for a vote.
The Senate's calendar isn't as crowded as the House's, but this is crunch time, and I at least don't see bright prospects for anything that isn't out of committee soon. Especially given that the House version of the bill is in a committee headed by an opponent of the measure, who hasn't brought it up yet. Here's the Star-Telegram's take:
Earlier Tuesday, supporters of the ban ratcheted up pressure on lawmakers to vote on the legislation by delivering almost 10,000 petition signatures to the Capitol."The clock is ticking," said Cass Wheeler, a retired CEO of the American Heart Association who represents the group Smoke-Free Texas. "We are here to remind Texas lawmakers that Texans want a smoke-free state."
[...]
The Texas Restaurant Association's board of directors has supported the statewide ban, saying it would level the playing field.
Before the committee hearing, Flower Mound Mayor Jody Smith stood with Wheeler outside the Senate chamber at a news conference calling on the House and Senate committees to send the bills to the floor for votes.
Flower Mound adopted a local smoking ban that took effect Jan. 1, and she said the outcome should give lawmakers the "strength to pass these bills" even though they have detractors.
Many Flower Mound businesses that initially resisted the ban have changed their minds and "now are calling our office to say, 'Thank you, my business is thriving,' " Smith said.
Twenty-five other states have already enacted statewide smoking bans, Wheeler said.
Smoke-Free America said it took a poll in January that found that 68 percent of Texans support a statewide ban.
Despite the apparent popularity of the ban and the support of the restaurant lobby, this doesn't look to me like it's going anywhere. I thought this session would be different, what with all the local action on the smoke-free front, but I guess not.
Well, that would suck.
Rep. Jose Menendez' bill to legalize poker in Texas is looking less than likely. Menendez' bill made it out of the House committee that oversees gambling issues. But he said unless he "can ratchet it back" -- limiting poker rooms to racetracks and Indian reservations, for example -- it's unlikely to get out of the influential House committee that sets the chamber's calendar, where it's been sitting for a couple of weeks. Menendez said if the bill gets to the House floor, it only needs a simple majority to pass. That said, the bill risks Gov. Rick Perry's veto if it expands the footprint of gaming in Texas."I'm still hopeful," Menendez said. "We've got a little time left."
If HB222 becomes a calendars casualty, it will be one of very many. That's just the way it goes in the Lege, even in years that are less rushed at the end than this. Still, I'll be sorry to see this die.
On the other hand, maybe it could be added as an amendment to the omnibus gambling resolution.
House Licensing and Administrative Procedures Chair Edmund Kuempel on Tuesday released a *draft* copy of the gambling constitutional amendment his committee is considering voting out.The measure, if it has the support in the Legislature, would allow Texans to vote in November to authorize legalized gambling in Texas. Individual communities would also have to hold local option elections to open gambling in their areas.
The partner legislation lawmakers are considering could open the door to up to 17 casinos in Texas. It could also legalize slot machines at racetracks and gaming at state Indian reservations.
Kuempel's staff stresses that the language is still in draft form; changes aren't unlikely. The chairman has said the measures won't come up in the House unless he knows he's got 100 votes. Late last week, he was still about 10 away.
I still think 17 casinos may be too many, but that's not worth worrying about at this time. I don't know what the odds are of Kuempel getting to 100 votes, though I suppose adding to the bill is more likely to subtract support than add it. Still, if the Tigua casinos can be added to this resolution, maybe poker can as well. We'll see.
I'm a bit wary of this.
The House tentatively approved Rep. Will Hartnett's proposal to hold people liable who file false and "groundless" complaints with the Texas Ethics Commission just before an election.Today's 84-54 second-reading vote gave a tentative green light to House Bill 677. If passed, members of the public and candidates who file complaints with the Ethics Commission 30 days before an election would be responsible for the subject of the complaint's defense fees if the commission finds the claims incorrect, "groundless" and "frivolous."
The idea is to discourage the use of media coverage to change an election, said Hartnett, R-Dallas. Since it takes the commission several weeks to investigate a claim, political opponents often file a complaint and leak the document to the press, resulting in headlines, altered public perception and frequently, a new victor in the election, the representative said.
"If it's a good complaint, they can file it without any concern," Hartnett said. "You only have to pay the attorney's fees if the claims are groundless."
But many lawmakers said the proposal could have a "chilling effect" on legitimate complaints. The reason, said Rep. Chris Turner, D-Burleson, is that people will have to consider the financial repercussions if their claim turns out to be wrong, since terms like "groundless" are not legally defined.
"There's no way to predict what the Ethics Commission is going to do," Turner said. "It sets up a barrier to the public to hold us accountable."
Though the story says a "member of the public" could be held liable, the text of the bill limits it to:
(A) a candidate in the election;
(B) a specific-purpose committee, as defined by Section 251.001, Election Code, that supports only a candidate in the election; or
(C) the campaign treasurer of a committee described by Paragraph (B).
That somewhat lessens my concern. As John Coby noted back in January that leaves a lot of room:
Unfortunately this will not stop complaints filed prior to an election since a PAC or campaign can ask someone not affiliated with the PAC or campaign to file the bill and this person would not come under this bill. If this bill was modified to include everyone, it will pretty much stop anyone from filing a complaint.
I can see where Rep. Hartnett is coming from on this, and I can see Rep. Turner's objections. Ultimately, I don't know how much effect a bill like this might have, one way or another.
The State Board of Education continues to be as popular as swine flu in the Lege.
Thanks to Rep. Donna Howard's HJR 77, which passed the House today, Texas taxpayers get to vote on who will manage the Permanent School Fund.Right now, the fund, which provides a significant chunk of funding to Texas public schools, is managed by the State Board of Education. Howard's constitutional amendment would create a separate body, made up of people with actual financial management and investment expertise, to manage the fund.
Rep. Wayne Christian protested, saying the fund has earned returns near those of other state funds, such as the Teacher's Retirement Fund. But Howard pointed out that two different agencies have recommended establishing a body to oversee the fund.
It might be a good time for some ch-ch-ch-changes. The fund lost a bunch o' money in the stock market with the financial crisis, so entrusting what's left of it to a more experienced group is not such a bad idea.
As TFN Insider notes, the enabling legislation also passed the House, so all that's needed is a Senate vote. Between this and the confirmation of Don McLeroy as Chair twisting in the wind, it's been a rough week for the SBOE. Which is fine by me.
The voter identification bill likely to reach the House floor would allow Texans to cast ballots if they can show two forms of non-photo ID, despite pressure from many Republican members to require picture identification for all voters. Rep. Todd Smith's compromise bill - circulated on the House floor this morning - also calls for increased funding for voter registration, greater acceptance of provisional ballots and a four year transition into the new voter identification system, lawmakers who received copies of it said.The bill is expected to be considered by the House Elections Committee, which Smith chairs, this weekend, and could come up in the House as early as next week.
Smith's current legislation is similar to the voter ID bill that passed the Senate - a bill that would allow voters to produce two non-photo IDs in lieu of a photo ID. One key difference: Smith's bill allows for a four-year phase in of the new rules, while the bill the GOP-dominated Senate passed requires them by the 2010 elections.
Gardner Selby has more.
--Smith envisions any voter who doesn't completely fulfill the ID requirements getting to cast a ballot that would be counted later than regular ballots, if their signature at the polling place matches their signature on the voter's voter registration application or another public record in the possession of their county's voter registrar.A twist: Smith's rewrite leaves the verification of signatures to local signature verification committees consisting of five voters or more, chosen on nomination by the local Democratic and Republican county chairs. Each board is to be chaired by a nominee from the party whose gubernatorial candidate drew the most local votes in the latest governor's election. The committees would be appointed by the early voting ballot board, which I suspect exists now in each county.
--Smith's version would not take effect unless the Legislature appropriates $7.5 million in 2010-11 to register voters.
I'll say this much for Smith, he hasn't (yet) bowed to pressure from his fellow Republicans, who seem bent on making voting a damn-near punitive experience. He still hasn't gone far enough for me to consider his alternative acceptable - sorry, but same day voter registration is a must-have for anything to be considered - but it seems clear he's listened to Democratic concerns and is at least making some effort to accommodate. Which isn't to say I trust him, but he hasn't gone over the edge and that's something. I suspect he's also aware of the fact that the GOP wet dream legislation almost surely doesn't have the votes to pass the House. Keep an eye on that list of pledge signers - if Tommy Merritt and Delwyn Jones show up, then it's a whole new ballgame, but until then I think there's a decent chance the House won't pass anything too horrible. Which makes me a lot more optimistic than I was in the beginning. I still want this whole thing to die a messy death amid savage Republican infighting. But if that's not going to happen, passing something relatively toothless would be a victory, especially given how this session began.
UPDATE: Vince has more.
Some news of interest from ACT Texas:
The House Committee on Environmental Regulation will hear important clean air bills today including SB 16 - Senator Averitt's omnibus clean air and energy efficiency bill. Several address flaws in the TCEQ permitting process. (TCEQ was already in the news this week when Senators Shapleigh, Davis, Ellis and Watson held a press conference on "cleaning up the mess at TCEQ.")[...]
Representative Donna Howard's HB 721 addresses one of the more difficult challenges in the fight for clean air: keeping affected counties (areas that are designated as having poor air quality under the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan but have not yet reached non-attainment status) from going into non-attainment. Translation: cities such as Waco, Austin and San Antonio are not in the same category for air quality monitoring and measures as are Dallas, Fort Worth and Houston, but they're on what amounts to a watch list. All three cities and surrounding counties are fighting to keep from going into non-attainment. However, the permitting process in affected areas currently does not require assessing the cumulative impact of proposed power plants on the area's ozone level.
SB 16 has measures that will require cumulative impact analysis for any new power plants proposed to be built in non-attainment areas - an absolutely necessary tool for these areas which are at risk of losing federal highway funds as the result of non-compliance with federal clean air standards. However, what's missing in the Texas clean air picture are better permitting rules that will help other cities keep their air quality from deteriorating.
There's a real irony at work here: a city must have a severe air quality problem before it qualifies for the type of measures that could have kept its air quality from deteriorating in the first place. And at that point, the things it must do have become far more costly and difficult than they would have been if the factors that were contributing to the ozone problem had been addressed before reaching this critical point.
Currently, the only way counties and cities can get all the resources possible to clean their air is to be in non-attainment. The improvements proposed in SB 16 are also limited to non-attainment areas. These measures, including stricter permitting rules such as cumulative impact analysis, are not available to counties trying to prevent more severe air quality issues. This situation has been brought up in testimony before House Environmental Regulation time and time again. After a while, it begins to have the feel of a chicken and egg story. HB 721 would end that story by giving Texans the tools they need to keep their air from getting so polluted in the first place.
Isn't an ounce of prevention supposed to be worth a pound of cure?
(Emphasis in original.) Yes, I sure think so. SB16 has already passed the Senate, with the Harris County GOP contingent solidifying its objectively pro-dirty air credentials. Seems to me that the approach outlined here would be a big long-run cost saver, since preventing a mess is almost always a lot cheaper than cleaning one up. Not to mention the enormous health benefits, making these cities and the state as a whole more attractive to those looking to relocate, and so on. But who cares about that when you have an ideology to support and a pile of pollution lobby cash to hoard?
So how is Speaker Joe Straus doing?
Three months into his first term leading the 150-member chamber, Republican Speaker Joe Straus is emerging as a bipartisan compromise-seeker, rejecting much of the power that his predecessor so coveted.Straus still faces some tough tests, but just four years after Craddick was anointed as the most powerful Texan by Texas Monthly magazine, observers say the young GOP leader has shifted power back to the House.
"Not some, probably all," said Rep. Tommy Merritt, a Longview Republican when asked if the speaker has given up some of the office's power. "He's doing exactly what a good speaker should do. He's wielding the gavel and trying to make fair rulings to make the will of the House work for Texas."
Straus' first big victory came last week when the normally raucous House unanimously approved the $178 billion budget. It was the first time in a decade that the usually thorny state budget came out with 149-0 approval.
In a rare sit-down, on-the-record interview with The Associated Press, Straus said the unanimous vote was the result of weeks of negotiations and compromise.
"No one, right or left, Republican or Democrat, urban or rural, is going to crush somebody by sheer force this session," said Straus, the state's first Jewish speaker.
I'd say that's a fair interpretation. As I've said before, Straus hasn't been exactly what I'd hoped for in a non-Tom Craddick Speaker, but he's still a lot better than Tom Craddick. The House has been remarkably free of strife, and more importantly it's been completely free of attempts by the Speaker to impose his will on everything in his path. That's as much a function of the near-even split as anything else, but the point is that Craddick couldn't have managed under those conditions; he would have been what he has always been. The House would have been a disaster area with him in charge.
Of course, there's still a lot of time left, and at least one big stinking partisan blob of an "issue" that remains unresolved.
Lately, Straus has been working to forge a compromise on an effort to strengthen voter identification requirements, a measure so divisive it sparked partisan meltdown in the Senate and triggered threats of lawsuits.The legislation is expected to be debated by the House within the next couple of weeks. But by many accounts, a House compromise is on the horizon. Unlike the Senate, Straus said, the House wasn't going to "pull the pin on the grenade and be irresponsible, which I think they were."
"They just didn't care about the consequences of the emotional side of it," he said. "And we're trying to be deliberate and slow ... we're trying to find solutions, not just talking points for somebody's political agenda."
Rep. Aaron Pena writes that voter ID could be on the agenda for the Elections Committee as early as tomorrow, with some kind of compromise voter ID bill to be debated. That's assuming that the whole thing doesn't get blown up by the Republican hardcore, as documented by Gardner Selby:
I'm hearing from Capitol sources that Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless, privately told GOP colleagues today he'd reached closure on his intended-to-be-a-compromise version of voter ID legislation and might even issue an afternoon press release saying so.To which, some Republicans reportedly reacted: "Whoa, Nelly (or Toddy)."
Their beef: They'd prefer not to see Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Elections, running out a softened-up approach that they don't think meets the intended ID mandate.
True, it'd be a painful political boomerang for Republicans to see House Democrats (on the short end of the 76-74 House split between the parties) wrest control of the GOP's most-valued legislative proposal (though the flip side, perhaps fueling Smith's hunt for common ground, is that if the Senate-approved version of voter ID isn't tweaked, he could fall short of getting the proposal out of his committee or off the House floor; tough cookies).
Until Smith speaks out (yup, I've tried to reach him), I'm left with separate statements from Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell, who takes a hard line on the voter ID front, and from 51 House Republicans (including Brown) similarly saying they're not interested in phasing in changes or making it easier for most anyone to vote without presenting proof of their identity.
GOP blow-up? I'm waiting to hear more.
For what it's worth, Rep. Smith says it was all sweetness and light when he addressed the caucus about his bill. Sure it was. I can't think of a better resolution to this mess than a GOP implosion as no bill gets passed because the hardliners refuse to accept a compromise, while their version fails to get enough votes. Nothing could illustrate the point that this is all just a naked partisan power grab than that. Form a circle, Republicans, and load up those AK-47s! We'll start popping the popcorn now.
Good news for CHIP and Medicaid.
The House Committee on Human Services approved a measure that would expand eligibility for the Children's Health Insurance Program, a move the bill's author, Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said would add 80,000 children to the program.The bill would allow certain families earning more than the current income limit -- about $44,000 for a family of four -- to pay to join the program.
The Senate Finance Committee passed a measure by Sen. Kip Averitt, R-Waco, that would also allow families above the income limit to pay to join CHIP, though it differs from Coleman's bill.
The House panel also passed a measure by state Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, that would allow families to stay in children's Medicaid for a full year rather than having to reapply every six months.
The first bill is HB2962, the Averitt bill appears to be SB841, and I can't tell what the Turner bill is. Here's a statement from Rep. Garnet Coleman's about what happened:
State Representative Garnet F. Coleman (D-Houston), who helped create the original Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), applauds Chairman Patrick Rose and the members of the House Committee on Health and Human Services for voting out CSHB 2962, which is a positive step in restoring CHIP coverage to its intended levels. Rep. Coleman also applauds the efforts of the members of the House Appropriations Committee for providing the funding to make this possible.This bill is a collaborative product of the efforts of several members of the legislature, as well as other Texans concerned with the high number of uninsured children in the state," said Rep. Coleman. "It is estimated that this legislation will help insure 80,000 of Texas' neediest children."
CSHB 2962 expands CHIP eligibility to include children from families earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The bill includes a buy in option, at no cost to the state, for children from families with a net income up to 400 percent above the federal poverty level, who were previously enrolled in CHIP but lose coverage due to an increase in income.
Currently, children from families at 150% above the federal poverty level enrolled in CHIP are required to verify that their allowable assets do not exceed $10,000. CSHB 2962 raises the check for allowable assets to families earning 250% of the federal poverty level, and raised allowable assets to $20,000. Additionally, it exempts the value of one car from being included in determining families' assets for CHIP.
"A vehicle is a lifeline for families, and should not be considered an asset when determining health coverage," said Rep. Coleman. "Families need to drive to get to work, to get food, and to take their children to school."
CSHB 2962 also excludes child support payments and assets in college savings plans from being considered when determining eligibility for programs like CHIP and Medicaid.
"These changes will encourage families to invest in the future of their children's education, without fear that their investment will cause them to lose their health care," said Rep. Coleman.
This is an extension of HB109 from the 2007 Lege, which restored the one-year enrollment period but did not relax the assets restrictions. I believe this would still leave us short of the levels we had before the 2003 decimation, but it's a big step forward and we'd be closer than ever if this passes. Let's hope it keeps the momentum going forward.
Damn those Washington elites! Always stuffing money into my pants campaign coffers!
Rick Perry has railed against Washington, but when it comes to campaign cash, the governor has raised far more than rival Kay Bailey Hutchison from the nation's capital.Perry has collected $2.7 million from Washington since becoming governor - four times more than Hutchison's $670,000 from Washington during the same period, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds.
The money has come from political communities, lobbyists, individuals and interest groups.
[...]
Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner said the governor's critique of Washington is limited to political spending, not political contributors.
"He's talking about elected officials who vote for earmarks, bailouts and out-of-control spending - that's what he's referring to when he talks about the problems of Washington," Miner said.
I got nothing.
The handwriting is on the wall.
Property tax cuts and a stingy state budget have left many Texas school districts saying they are short-changing children and warning of another lawsuit attempt to force reforms.Texas lawmakers plan to increase school spending, but a skeptical education community isn't sure it will be enough to cover costs or close growing funding gaps between school districts.
Lawmakers cut property taxes three years ago in school finance changes ordered by the Texas Supreme Court, largely freezing school revenue at 2006 levels. Today, school funding has grown dramatically less equitable and an estimated 40 percent of the state's 1,040 school districts are running deficits, requiring them to dip into reserve funds.
A recent report by the non-partisan Legislative Budget Board indicates school funding is more inequitable today than it was when lawmakers reformed the system.
[...]
"We have people in desperate straits," said Wayne Pierce, head of the Equity Center, which represents about 900 low- and mid-property-wealth districts.
"There's a good chance, if they don't do this right, people who have held off in filing a lawsuit will start thinking seriously about it," Pierce said.
I forget where I came across it, but I recently saw an observation that the state of Texas has never embarked on school finance reform without being forced to do so by a lawsuit first. I don't know about you, but I think that's a lousy way to do business.
As state law has forced local tax rates down to a maximum of $1.04 per $100 property valuation for maintenance and operations, poorer districts are getting less total revenue unless they persuade voters to raise taxes.Committees in both the Senate and House are considering school finance bills, including a plan by Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, that has been embraced by school districts.
It has a larger price tag than the one Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, is pushing in the House, or than another one by Senate Public Education Chair Florence Shapiro, R-Plano.
"I don't think school districts in Texas will ever get all the money they need," said Hochberg.
"I'm particularly concerned that we are still under-funding what it takes for a school district to be successful with the most challenging kids," he said.
So as we ponder the billions of dollars we've spent on property tax cuts and not spent on fixing and improving our schools, here's a report from McKinsey about the economic impact of the education gap, via Matt Yglesias:
-- If the United States had in recent years closed the gap between its educational achievement levels and those of better-performing nations such as Finland and Korea, GDP in 2008 could have been $1.3 trillion to $2.3 trillion higher. This represents 9 to 16 percent of GDP.-- If the gap between black and Latino student performance and white student performance had been similarly narrowed, GDP in 2008 would have been between $310 billion and $525 billion higher, or 2 to 4 percent of GDP. The magnitude of this impact will rise in the years ahead as demographic shifts result in blacks and Latinos becoming a larger proportion of the population and workforce.
--If the gap between low-income students and the rest had been similarly narrowed, GDP in 2008 would have been $400 billion to $670 billion higher, or 3 to 5 percent of GDP.
--If the gap between America's low-performing states and the rest had been similarly narrowed, GDP in 2008 would have been $425 billion to $700 billion higher, or 3 to 5 percent of GDP.
Emphasis in original. All these achievements could have been realized with a far smaller investment than the payoff. How much better shape would we be in today if we truly recognized the value of high quality schooling for everyone? This is a far, far better job creation engine than the Texas Enterprise Fund, and yet our Governor, who claims to be all about economic growth and job creation, would never consider making the kind of investment in public schools that would yield these results. And so we get what we don't pay for, and we wonder why school finance reform is always on the agenda.
Rep. Lon Burnam's resolution to impeach Judge Sharon Keller was scheduled to get a hearing Monday. Burnam vowed that it would come to a vote on the House floor.
If that resolution does not move in committee, Burnam said he will seek a majority vote for impeachment on the House floor. But he said he will make an impeachment motion even if he is not sure of winning."I'd rather lose the vote than not have the vote," Burnam declared.
Burnam said a House vote on impeachment would immediately remove Keller from the bench while she awaited a trial in the state Senate.
He said the judicial conduct commission could take another 18 months to act. Even if the commission finds against Keller, Burnam said, the punishment could range from a slap on the wrist to removal from office.
Burnam said immediate action is needed when life and death matters are at stake in the judicial system.
The hearing started at 10 PM and ran until 12:30, so there isn't much news coverage about what happened in the hearing. The Star Telegram has some information.
[Rep. Burnam] presented witnesses to reinforce his claim that Judge Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, committed "a gross neglect of duty and willing disregard for human life" by refusing the keep the court's office open after hours to accept a Death Row appeal. The inmate, Michael Richard, was executed hours later."What she did was so outrageous," retired state appeals court Justice Michol O'Connor of Houston said as she waited to testify on behalf of Burnam's motion.
[...]
Burnam told reporters that he plans to force a vote by the full 150-member House even if the committee rejects his motion. He says he has the right to do so under House rules. "I can bring it up at any time," Burnam said.
Austin attorney Charles Herring Jr., an expert on legal ethics issues who has advised the Texas Supreme Court, said in written testimony that Keller's behavior "clearly meets the constitutional standards for impeachment."
"I submit that if that type of egregious judicial misconduct, with the most serious possible consequences imaginable, does not require removal from office, nothing does," Herring wrote.
[...]
If the Legislature gives the go-ahead for impeachment, the process would likely not start until after the session ends June 1. House members would return to Austin to consider articles of impeachment. If adopted, the Senate would then convene for a trial. No action by the governor would be necessary, Burnam said.
Grits, from whom I got that link, also has a report:
[Judge O'Connor declared] that three things justified her impeachment - her actions in the Michael Richard cases, her stated partiality toward the prosecution, and her incompetence as a judge. In the Richard case, she said, the court wasn't closed "in any real sense" at 5 p.m., she said, since the assigned duty judge was waiting there to hear the appeal. She said she'd never heard of a capital case when a request for a 20-minute delay was denied by an appellate court.Judge O'Connor particularly emphasized Judge Keller's partiality toward the prosecution, declaring that alone should be enough to justify her removal. This to me is an even stronger argument for her ouster than the Michael Richard debacle. Imagine a family court judge who declared themselves "pro-husband"!
Judge O'Connor went through all the various reasons judges had been removed from office in Texas, arguing that Judge Keller's behavior was worse than any of them. She said she doesn't know anyone who believes Keller should stay in office.
The hearing lasted nearly three hours with most of the testimony favoring impeachment.
Mark Bennett was there for the hearing, though his report is from before it started. The DMN, Statesman, and Daily Texan have more, and you can watch the archived video of the hearing if you've got a few hours to kill; Burnam's stuff starts about three hours in. I've put a call into Rep. Burnam's office and am awaiting a statement from them about the hearing. I'll post it when I get it.
Good.
The House Business and Industry Committee wasted no time approving the Senate bill that would open the door for Texas to get $555 million in federal stimulus money to expand unemployment eligibility.SB 1569 landed in the committee yesterday and the members passed it out Tuesday afternoon in a 6-2 vote. Republican Reps. Wayne Christian of Center and Rob Orr of Burleson were the nays.
Time is of the essence, of course, since there is a good chance Gov. Rick Perry will veto the measure and the chambers could try to override that veto. Perry has not said he will veto the legislation, which passed the Senate last week, but he has repeatedly objected to taking the money.
One significant change made to the bill in committee would undo an amendment proffered by Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, that would make the eligibility changes contingent upon getting the federal money.
The U.S. Department of Labor, however, indicated that Texas would not get the money if that provision remained so the House committee stripped it.
Committee Chairman Joe Deshotel, D-Beaumont, said the bill could come to the House floor next week.
If I'm reading the Constitution correctly, if the bill gets to Governor Perry more than ten days before sine die (Sundays excluded), then there would still be time to override a veto. Easier said than done, of course, but at least there's a chance. Keep your fingers crossed.
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)
"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."
He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."
My thoughts:
1. I sure hope the Democrats got some kind of assurances about how Specter would vote going forward, because he needed them way more than they needed him. Given that he's reiterated his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, the opening stanza isn't too promising.
2. In many ways, this really doesn't change much. Yes, assuming Sen. Al Franken gets seated sometime before he stands for re-election, this gives the Democrats the magic number of 60 members. The thing is, Senate Democrats have been a bigger obstacle to President Obama's agenda than any other group. Conservative Dems such as Sen. Ben Nelson have the leverage to foil, water down, or otherwise pimp to their liking just about anything Obama wants to push. Specter's switch doesn't change this dynamic at all.
3. Having said that, there is a way in which Specter's switch could have a profound effect:
Arlen Specter (R-PA) is rumored to be ready to become Arlen Specter (D-PA). There are a million aspects of that worth examining. But here's one for process nuts. Check out the Senate Judiciary Committee Rules:
IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTEThe Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.
Your current lineup of Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee:Arlen Specter
Orrin Hatch
Chuck Grassley
Jon Kyl
Jeff Sessions
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Tom CoburnWhich of these fellas do you think will be ready to provide the necessary one vote from the minority to bring things to a vote in the committee on tough questions now?
Specter is caucusing with the Democrats, but he's still a Republican as far as committee assignments go, and will be one until there's a new organizing resolution. Same for all the other committees he's on. Democrats were always going to call for a new organizing resolution once Franken gets seated. Now, maybe they're willing to let that process play out. Which poison do you think the Senate GOPers would prefer to choose - the fox in the henhouse, or Senator Sixty? Decisions, decisions...
4. Speaking of which, how does this affect the KBH will-she-stay-or-will-she-resign equation? Short answer: beats the beck out of me. On the one hand, you'd think Sen. Cornyn would want her to stay that much more. On the other hand, once Franken is in place, as he inevitably will be, what difference does it make? As always, the answer is "Who knows what KBH will do?"
5. Having said that, prepare to have your mind blown even further. I don't see any way in which this happens, nor do I see rank and file Democrats being that thrilled at the prospect, for better or worse. But crazier things have happened, and there is an objective logic to it.
6. Dealing with party switchers in general causes headaches and almost always comes with a fair bit of bellyaching up front. Which is totally understandable, especially in the case of someone as obviously calculating and driven by self-interest as Specter is. I get where people like Atrios are coming from, I really do, and it's completely possible that what we'll get is a nominal Democrat who doesn't really change his behavior in any meaningful way. Even worse, we may be sacrificing the chance to elect a better Democrat in 2010 and risk losing to a Republican who's slightly less crazy than Pat Toomey (not a high bar to clear), since the case against Specter pretty much writes itself. He's going to have to prove himself, and I hope Dems like Joe Sestak keep their powder dry until it's clear that Specter is walking the walk. Here in Texas, we've had some very good results, as State Rep. Kirk England has been a fine member of the Democratic caucus, and State Sen. Wendy Davis (who had some Republican voting history but had never held office as a Republican) is a rising star having by my count an outstanding freshman session. Whether or not the past stays in the past depends entirely on what happens going forward. It's totally up to Sen. Specter.
7. Finally, whatever else this is about, I love Specter's rationale for switching. It's an acknowledgment of reality, something which his now-former colleagues have less and less experience with these days. Once upon a time, party switchers helped the GOP grow bigger and stronger. Now it's helping them grow smaller and weaker. I couldn't be happier about that.
If there were a competition for the most toothless (least toothful?) state regulatory agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) would surely be a contender for the title, most likely along with the Texas Ethics Commission. It's gotten bad enough that some Senators are calling out the Governor on this.
Sens. Wendy Davis, Kirk Watson, Rodney Ellis, and Eliot Shapleigh took turns reviewing the litany of TCEQ failures - from potentially illegal meetings between a TCEQ commissioner and Asarco representatives to the denial of public hearings on cement kilns.Sen. Davis (D-Fort Worth) honed in on the case of Glenn Shankle, the former TCEQ executive director who issued two extremely valuable radioactive waste disposal permits to a company, Waste Control Specialists, that he is now lobbying for.
"Right now industry is having its way with regulators and it needs to stop," said Davis.
That TCEQ nearly always sides with polluters is not exactly news. The real question is: What are concerned lawmakers going to do about it? The senators promoted their various reform bills but suggested that industry lobbyists had prevented many of them from even getting a hearing. In the absence of significant action from the Lege, the senators are pushing for a thorough house-cleaning directed by the governor, a proposal that is frankly fanciful.
Let's be honest: Rick Perry has exactly the TCEQ that he wants. Shapleigh calls the problems at TCEQ "systemic and pervasive." If so, that's due in large part to Perry's appointments to the three-member TCEQ commission.
Just remember when you hear Governor Perry blather on about "states' rights" in front of paltry crowds of true believers that if the state did its job on matters like these that mean ol' oppressive federal government really would leave us alone. It's precisely because we have limp noodles like the TCEQ that leads to federal involvement. There's nothing new or unusual about this - the reason we have federal civil rights laws is because of states like Texas that refused to enforce such protections for their own citizens. Different decade, same story. Kilday Hart has more.
Texas Watchdog has the sad news.
Three bills that would allow microbreweries to sell beer where they brew it appear under the influence of special interests as one of the most powerful and well-funded lobbies in the state, the Texas Wholesale Beer Distributors, claims another triumph.[...]
"It has to do with the theory of warfare," says Howard Wolf, the treasurer of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's political action committee. "There are huge amounts of money at stake here, and this monopoly is so entrenched and so powerful, they are going to fight as long as they can to protect this monopoly or scheme."
This session three Democrats proposed a slight tweak to the law that would permit the state's breweries to sell limited amounts of beer. But the Wholesale Beer Distributors, a press shy group that fills the campaign chests of lawmakers from all parties and regions, testified against a compromise measure, sponsored by state Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, and the bill is still not scheduled for a committee vote. Meanwhile, time is running out. (That the Beer Alliance of Texas, a rival lobby, actually helped write Farrar's compromise bill, should give you a good indication of that group's own clout.)
I guess Rick Donley of the Beer Alliance of Texas wasn't kidding when he said "I wish we had one-tenth the influence [the breweries] think we have." Of course, he was speaking as a distributor, and that's the team that won. So, you know, maybe not such a compelling argument.
Two other beer bills-one from state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, and state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, also appear to be drying up with no vote scheduled on either of them.
At this point, any bill that hasn't been voted out of committee is almost certainly dead. For sure, any bill with dedicated opposition from a lobby like the beer distributors is very dead, not just merely dead. Sorry, beer drinkers of Texas. We lose again.
Last session, after several prior attempts to ban cities from using red light cameras, the Lege passed a bill (SB1119) that granted cities the authority to use them, with some restrictions. Via Matt Stiles, it seems one of the legislators who had made those previous attempts to ban the cameras is still at it.
A bill that would ban local authorities from using red-light cameras like this one at Bellaire and the Southwest Freeway in Houston got a key vote [Thursday] night in the Legislature.The legislation, authored by state Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, was passed out of the House urban affairs committee on the 6-5 vote.
As we've written before, Isett is no fan of red-light cameras. His city actually lost money with them.
The Texas Legislature Online page for HB2639 doesn't show the committee vote, so I can't say who did what. I've looked at the text of the bill, and it's not fully clear to me what it does - it substitutes "local authority" for "municipality" as part of its wording, which distinction I don't really understand. Be that as it may, this may make it to the House floor to a vote, but I think it's likely to be a calendars casualty in the Senate. I just don't get the impression that there's enough sentiment to undo what was done last time. But you never know, so we'll keep an eye on this.
Fun fact: Three of the four House sponsors of SB1119 are no longer in the House: Jim Murphy, the author of the House companion bill for SB11119, was defeated in November by Rep. Kristi Thibaut; Kevin Bailey was defeated in the Democratic primary by Rep. Armando Walle, who is now on the Urban Affairs committee; and Dianne Delisi retired. I can confidently state that SB1119 had nothing to do with Murphy or Bailey's defeats, but it'll be interesting to see how all of their replacements vote on HB2639 if it comes to the floor.
The Texas Progressive Alliance - at least this member, anyway - would like to say "Go Rockets!" Oh, and here's this week's blog roundup.
The Senate this past week passed a bill to reform the state's unemployment insurance laws in a way that would allow us to accept up to $600 million in stimulus funds, despite Governor Perry's resistance. Off the Kuff has the details.
YaGottaLoveIt of South Texas Chisme says Voter ID is needed to eliminate ghost voting in the Texas House of Representatives. Why don't the Republicans try it out there first?
Neil at Texas Liberal offers up information on Swine Flu and provides tips on proper handwashing.
AAA-Fund Blog has audio from the recent national call with Ramey Ko and Hubert Vo about voting rights in Texas and around the nation.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson has the latest on transportation issues in the lege, This week's transportation action in the legislature.
This week, McBlogger took some time out his busy schedule to do something unusual, criticize someone. Specifically, Karl Rove who thinks teabaggin' is just awesome and the beginning of the Republican Party's return to electoral relevance. McBlogger, as you can imagine, has a different opinion.
John Culberson nosed out Joe Barton for the first "Douchebag of the Week" award presented by Brains and Eggs. It was a close contest with Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, and the Texas House Republicans all competing fiercely for the coveted prize. Better luck next week, jerks.
BossKitty at TruthHugger sees big problems addressing the pandemic hysteria because workers cannot tolerate risk staying home sick. Because Health Insurance has become such an exclusive club any medical emergency, like a contagious outbreak, can become a pandemic crisis. FLU PANDEMIC - Stay Home or Go To Work Sick?
Todd Hill at Burnt Orange Report writes about how TX Senator John Cornyn admits that the KBH seat is winnable for Democrats. This revelation from Big Bad John comes after we learn that Bill White and John Sharp had the largest 1Q fundraising totals for any non-incumbent Senate candidate in the country.
Over at TexasKaos, Libby Shaw gathers the shameful record of Republican buffoonery into a sad and funny report she calls "Texas Republican Jackasses Continue to Bring Shame to Texas". You don't want to miss this one. With videos!
Vince at Capitol Annex notes that Congressman Joe Barton (R-Ennis) got dissed by Al Gore on global warming.
Elise Hu names names.
State Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, House Appropriations Chairman
State Rep. Richard Raymond, D-Webb, House Appropriations Vice-Chair
State Rep. Ruth Jones-McClendon, D-San Antonio
State Rep. John Otto, R-Dayton
State Rep. John Zerwas, R-Houston
Give credit to Burka - he called all five. These five will join Senate conferees Steve Ogden, Royce West, Florence Shapiro, Chuy Hinojosa, and Tommy Williams to hammer out the final budget. I don't know yet when they'll start their process, but I assume it'll be soon. Will the Davis-Walle amendment, which drained the Texas Enterprise Fund in the event of a veto of SB1569, survive? Will the Ogden stem cell rider get the heave-ho? The answers to these and other important questions will be known to us soon.
UPDATE: As has been pointed out to me, Zerwas is from Katy, in Fort Bend County. None of the ten conferees are from Harris County; Williams' district includes a piece of northeast Harris County, though he himself hails from The Woodlands. I hadn't realized that when I first wrote this, but it strikes me now as being a little strange that the largest county in the state has basically no representation on the budget conference committee. Hope they don't forget about us...
The HISD Board of Trustees will hold a series of eight public meetings to get feedback about what people want in their next Superintendent.
Heidrick & Struggles, the executive search firm hired by the schol board, will lead the community meetings and plans to use the input in its hunt for superintendent candidates.Meetings also will be held with various business, faith-based, parent, educational and employee groups.
Trustees have set a goal of hiring a superintendent in July but have said the timeline is flexible.
The meeting schedule is as follows:
- Today: 6:30 p.m., HISD South Region Office, 4040 W. Fuqua
- Tuesday: 6:30 p.m., Bellaire High School, 5100 Maple
- Wednesday: 6:30 p.m., Wheatley High School, 4801 Providence
- Thursday: 6:30 p.m., Washington High School, 119 E. 39th
- May 4: 6:30 p.m., Revere Middle School, 10502 Briar Forest
- May 5: 6:30 p.m., Reagan High School, 413 E. 13th
- May 7: 6:30 p.m., Deady Middle School, 2500 Broadway
- May 9: 2 p.m., Ryan Middle School, 2610 Elgin
Please participate if you can.
Well, this is interesting news.
Retired for all of four months, former Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is considering running for a new job, possibly as the state's top lawyer."There have been people who have talked to me about statewide runs," for either governor or attorney general, said Earle, who served as Travis County's top prosecutor for 31 years before retiring in December.
Eye on Williamson has been on the Earle-for-Governor bandwagon for months now, so this ought to make him happy. I think just the fact that "people" have been talking to Earle about a possible statewide run next year suggests that these people, who one presumes are the type who can actually make a campaign financially viable, think such a race is winnable. That says something about the political climate these days. Such optimism may be misplaced, but give how not too long ago the meme was that Democrats had already punted on the 2010 elections, it's remarkable in and of itself.
Earle is an appealing candidate in many ways. He's well known around the state, which is something you can't say for many Texas Dems. He'd have no trouble firing up the base, thanks to his pursuit of Tom DeLay. Even better, the DeLay brand is sullied enough that any resentment of this case would likely be limited for the most part to folks who wouldn't vote for any Democrat anyway. The eventual and long-awaited prosecutions of DeLay and his cronies would keep Earle's name in the news even with him gone from the Travis County DA's office. If everyone gets acquitted it would be a negative for him, but I think the odds are pretty good of at least some convictions. Earle's reputation is that of a straight-shooter, which would play very nicely with any kind of reform message. All in all, there's a lot to like about this.
Now of course, Democrats already have candidates for each of these offices. With all due respect to Tom Schieffer, I'd vote for Ronnie Earle in a heartbeat for the gubernatorial nomination. But if Sen. Leticia Van de Putte runs, I'd likely prefer her, as I think her legislative experience will make her the stronger candidate. Attorney General would be an excellent fit for Earle, and as much as I respect Barbara Radnofsky, I'd be strongly inclined to support Earle for that office. Maybe BAR might consider shifting focus to the Supreme Court if Earle does jump in - that's where statewide Dems have gotten their highest vote totals in the past couple of elections, and her name ID would be as much of an asset there as anywhere else on the ballot.
Of course, all this is predicated on Earle actually taking the plunge in one of these races. I've lost count of the number of "so-and-so is considering a run for something" stories I've seen in the past few years; if I had a nickel for each one, my 401(k) would still be worth something. If and when we hear more about his ambitions, or those of anyone else who might be lurking out there, we'll figure it all out then. Thanks to BOR for the tip.
Julian Castro, who narrowly lost the 2005 Mayoral race in San Antonio to outgoing Mayor Phil Hardberger, was endorsed for the office this year by the San Antonio Express News.
Castro is the best prepared candidate, and he offers the best option for voters in this race.Since his loss to Hardberger in 2005, Castro has not taken his eye off the goal of succeeding his formal rival.
He has determinedly courted a business community that was skeptical of him four years ago.
And, notably, Castro cites economic growth as the mayor's first job.
Meanwhile, an effort by some in the business community to recruit a candidate in the Hardberger mold failed.
And as a result of those factors, Castro has earned a significant share of support from a business community that is split between the three leading contenders. He already enjoyed considerable grass-roots strength.
Castro, now 34, has matured in the four years since he faced Hardberger.
And his 2009 campaign has avoided the many missteps that doomed his earlier run.
Not using his twin brother, State Rep. Joaquin Castro, as a stand-in was a good start. More seriously, Castro is a strong favorite to win, and might take it in the first round. Given that he's just 34 now, that raises the question of where he might go from here.
Castro's foes criticize him as overly ambitious, although he has not publicly expressed a desire for any political job other than mayor.
It's hard to imagine that he hasn't given the matter some thought. Assuming he does win this race, and that a Democrat doesn't win the Governor's race next year, Castro would be stepping down from this job in May of 2013, in plenty of time for the next go-round there. Anyone want to hop on board the Castro for Governor 2014 bandwagon? John Cornyn's Senate seat will be up that year, too, if you want a different option. It's never too early to speculate, after all. SA Mayor has more.
UPDATE: As Randy reminds me in the comments, SA's extreme term limits law was loosened last years, so Castro - or whoever wins, of course - could serve till 2017. So my speculation is even more ridiculously premature. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The Chron has a nice profile of State Rep. Kristi Thibaut, who had a very busy year last year.
Thibaut first ran for the Legislature in 2006. She had been a state Senate messenger and a government major while in college and a legislative aide for two years. Taught by her father to hunt geese on the coast, she had headed the youth hunting group. She also worked for the Texas Wildlife Foundation and as a campaign fundraiser.Thibaut got at least one Republican vote: her husband's. But she lost the race to Republican Jim Murphy in District 133, which includes upper-middle-class homes and modest apartment complexes near Westheimer and the Sam Houston Tollway.
Democrats reloaded on hope for 2008. Thibaut started running again in late 2007. And the candidate, who had suffered a miscarriage months earlier, talked with her husband about starting the adoption process after November's election.
Then Thibaut got pregnant.
"I was as hysterical as anybody in that position would be," she recalled. She'd been fearful she would disappoint supporters and contributors who might think she no longer was game for political combat.
But she was. Her husband encouraged her to stay on the campaign trail, as did groups such as Annie's List, which backs Democratic women seeking Texas offices.
Her son was born June 11, and soon after, Thibaut sought campaign donations with a letter that included a baby photo. On Election Day, she greeted voters at polling places with her son, who wore a T-shirt saying "Vote for my mommy."
Child exploitation for political gain? "We were shameless," Thibaut said.
Turnout doubled from 2006. She beat Murphy by fewer than 500 votes.
I remember talking to Thibaut shortly after the news of her pregnancy became public. She was confident at the time that she could run an effective campaign, and more importantly raise the funds she'd need to run that campaign, during and after her pregnancy. The results speak for themselves. Thibaut got a sizable boost from the Democratic wave of 2008, and will be one of the more endangered incumbents in 2010 because of that; Murphy is running again, for the rubber match. She's a hard worker, she's already got some good legislative results, and she's just a super person, so if anyone can hold that seat, it's her.
Meanwhile, the Statesman has an interesting piece on longtime conservative stalwart Rep. Warren Chisum, who lost power in the Speaker transition but has since morphed into a key player on environmental legislation.
With ever more likely federal rules limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, which have been associated with global warming, Chisum has teamed up with Democrats and some Republicans to make business-friendly proposals that would give subsidies to companies that capture greenhouse gas emissions.Chisum, in short, has sought out engagement with the federal government over carbon dioxide rules even as some leading Republicans have taken a more confrontational posture.
Gov. Rick Perry, for one, has warned against an activist Environmental Protection Agency and said the greenhouse gas rules could derail the economy in a state that is the nation's largest emitter of carbon dioxide.
But Chisum has avoided the politically divisive rhetoric of global warming, which most Texas Republican leaders are unwilling to connect to emissions from the state's power plants and manufacturing facilities.
Instead, he has focused on modest goals aimed at tamping down the state's carbon emissions by dishing out tax breaks and other incentives to industries. The proposals could save utilities and other industries money, depending on how expensive carbon emissions become under federal limits, and could earn Texas political credit as those limits are shaped.
"There's not much sympathy for Texas" in Washington, said Chisum, who said the state should try to influence the shape of federal law. "We should try to get a legitimate seat in any rule-making that the federal government is involved in sooner rather than later."
Chisum gets positive reviews from environmental advocates in the piece, though they note that there's a whole lot of legislation that hasn't passed yet. He's really a good fit for the role he's taken here, because everyone likes and respects him, and he's clearly taken a pragmatic, let's-get-things-done perspective. I wish him well in this pursuit.
This is a necessary step, but it is not a sufficient one.
Texas' highest criminal court has asked the State Bar of Texas to investigate a San Antonio attorney who missed critical deadlines in four recent death row appeals -- actions that jeopardized inmates' chances of obtaining further legal review before execution.The Chronicle reported on Monday that San Antonio attorney Suzanne Kramer was among a handful of lawyers statewide who repeatedly missed death row deadlines but continued to get capital murder assignments.
On Wednesday, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeal found Kramer in contempt of court for failing again to properly file inmate Juan Castillo's appeal -- originally due in December 2006 . Kramer was fined $250, removed from Castillo's case and referred to the chief disciplinary counsel of the State Bar of Texas, the opinion shows.
The court removed her from three out of four late cases in 2008, but at the time continued to allow her to represent Castillo.
We've heard about Ms. Kramer before. She has been paid $86,577 in fees by Bexar County since 2007, according to that Chron story, though she was not paid for the cases where she missed deadlines. That she needs to be held accountable for her unprofessional behavior is clear, but what's equally clear is that courts need to stop assigning attorneys like her to these cases in the first place. There should also be a process to take already-assigned cases away from them once they've demonstrated they can't handle them. Until we fix that, we're not fully addressing the problem.
[Governor Rick] Perry will moderate a forum Monday on President Barack Obama's first 100 days.Expect more talk about out-of-control Washington spending, says spokesman Mark Miner, with much time spent listening to people at the Dallas-area stop on a tour by three conservative radio talk-show hosts.
Please help me!
Gov. Rick Perry has asked for 37,430 courses of anti-viral medicine from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because of the swine flu outbreak.
Damn that meddling, intrusive, too-expensive federal government! Always there when you really need them!
The "We haven't seceded just yet" edition...
There may come a day, and that day may never come, when teabagging jokes cease to be funny, but it won't be any time soon.
On the other hand, jokes about Texas secession will get old pretty quickly, but at least this one is pretty darned funny. Now available in T-shirts.
See, this is why I'm a dog person.
Jeez, haven't Republicans figured out not to violate copyright in campaign ads yet? It's as if they don't care or something. Via Mac.
Bob the Dinosaur: "Cows are destroying the earth?"
Dogbert: They're better organized than you might think.
Some judges just have no sense of humor.
"I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing."
I don't know what the future of journalism is, but whatever it is, Damon Weaver will be a big part of it.
When wingnuts collide, a continuing story.
Congratulations to Ezra Klein!
Vote for the worst media moments of the first 100 days.
Chinese people not having a great legislative session.
Is your beer glass only 3/4ths full?
When Life Hands You Lemons, Smear the Juice All Over Your Body and Howl at the Moon. Worth linking to just for the title, but the post is a good read, too.
We love Berryhill in the Heights - the girls are devotees of their tamales - but I've never tried their burgers. Why eat a burger at a Mexican food restaurant?
sigh These are my people.
Stalking the O'Reilly stalker.
Losing an election you're favored to win may not seem to you like something to build on, but then you're not Pete Sessions.
Early voting for the District H special election begins tomorrow. Here's the Chron's usual overview story on the race, in which each candidate gets a paragraph of biography and a paragraph of quotation. Dunno if that'll help you make up your mind if you're still undecided, but there it is anyway.
As a reminder, the Harris County Clerk has posted the early voting schedule and locations (PDF) for this election. Briefly summarized, it is as follows:
For the week of Monday, April 27 to Friday, May 1: 8 AM to 5 PM
For Saturday, May 2: 7 AM to 7 PM
For Sunday, May 3: 1 PM to 6 PM
For Monday, May 4 and Tuesday, May 5: 7 AM to 7 PM
There are three locations:
The Harris County Administrative Building, 1001 Preston St downtown, first floor.
Moody Park Recreation Center, 3725 Fulton Street, which I believe is in Lindale.
Ripley House Neighborhood Center, 4410 Navigation Blvd, in the East End.
And if you'd like some more in-depth information about the candidates, you can review the interviews I did with them:
Rick Rodriguez
Yolanda Navarro Flores
Lupe Garcia
Gonzalo Camacho
Maverick Welsh
Hugo Mojica
Ed Gonzalez
I assume tomorrow we'll get the Chron's endorsement for the race. At least, I hope so.
This story is about the likely death of the Wentworth nonpartisan redistricting committee bill, which wasn't unexpected, but the real story is about how it went down.
A move to put redistricting into the hands of a bi-partisan public commission instead of partisan lawmakers was derailed today in the Texas Senate, as conservative Republicans flexed their muscle against moderate members of their own party.The rare display of a GOP split came when state Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican who represents parts of southern Austin and Travis County, tried to bring up for debate his long-delayed Senate Bill 315.
Five senators were absent, several of whom were against the measure. Conservative Republicans immediately jumped up to object.
"It appears this is an end-around movement," complained Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston. This is a bushwhacking."
Yes, Lord knows we can't have any attempts to get around Senate rules to push through legislation that doesn't have two-thirds support of the chamber. That just won't do.
Patrick said he opposed today's maneuver by Wentworth to take a vote with several members absent."Trying to sneak one through. That's not how its supposed to work in the Senate," he said.
Oh, Danno. You're so frigging precious I could just pinch your cheeks.
Carlos Uresti came down with a serious bout of the flu Monday, and left the Capitol after fellow senators noted how bad he looked shivering in the Senate lounge. In particular, Dr. Kyle Janek advised him to get to bed, amidst joking from others present: "What do you think is going to happen? That we'll call up the Voter ID bill?"It now appears that Uresti's illness may have prompted David Dewhurst to recognize Troy Fraser on the controversial bill, which set in motion an emotional outburst midday Tuesday over Dewhurst's refusal to count John Whitmire's vote.
Oddly enough, I don't remember Sen. Patrick expressing any outrage at the time of that attempt to sneak one through. He's always advocated for letting the majority have its way in the Senate (though he aimed a bit lower this session, trying to drum up support for a three-fifths rule instead), and for doing away with the two-thirds rule altogether - the whole opening day voter ID rules change was a dream come true for him. But when he needs the protection of the two thirds rule to prevent something he doesn't like from going through - indeed, in a situation where he himself was the difference between there being two-thirds support and not - boy will he whine about any sneaky attempts to subvert that rule. Way to be a man of principle, Danno!
Are the stars really aligning to bring a SUPERTRAIN to Texas? Maybe so!
Current plans for a Texas system envision a "T-bone" track shape connecting Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Houston and other towns. But much remains vague: where exactly the route would go, who would build it, the price and funding sources."We clearly don't have a project that is ready," said Alan Clark, transportation programs manager for the Houston-Galveston Area Council. "There's no alignment, no one has done any environmental work. It's all a concept right now."
The federal government has not yet issued guidelines for how to apply for the money, and it's unclear if the Texas Department of Transportation -- or another agency or group -- would lead the project. Plans are further along in other states, including California and Florida.
Nevertheless, Texas has natural advantages conducive to high-speed rail, advocates say. The terrain is relatively flat and land is cheaper than in California and Florida.
"We have the ability to produce a system that is reasonably priced," said David Dean, a former Texas secretary of state. Dean is working as a consultant for the main advocacy group, the Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corp.
Dean estimates the T-bone would cost $10 billion to 20 billion and could be completed by 2020. It would ease highway congestion and pollution, attract more Fortune 500 companies to the state, and help in an Olympics bid, he said. The Houston route could even help during hurricane evacuations, he added.
[...]
In 1994, state plans to bring high-speed rail to Texas collapsed after a French company could not get sufficient funding for a system that would have linked Dallas, Houston and San Antonio in a triangular track pattern.
The T-bone shape, requiring 440 miles of track, would be 40 percent smaller than the triangle plan. Technology has also advanced, making construction and operation easier and less expensive, Dean said.
[Former Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, who is chairing the High Speed Rail and Transportation Corp,] said airlines operating in the state, which vigorously lobbied against the 1994 plan, are now open to the idea, provided the routes connect to major airports.
So I wouldn't look to buy the Texas version of a Eurorail pass just yet, but prospects are brighter than they've ever been. I think the prospects for the HSRT Corp will improve if the big cities on the endpoints have more robust rail systems for its passengers to connect to, including commuter lines like what's been proposed for Houston to Galveston. Being able to leave the car at home when traveling this way will be a huge boon. I have my doubts that they can really make anything happen in the next decade, but I'll be more than pleased to be proven wrong about that.
Via email from the CTC:
On Tuesday, the Texas Senate passed the Safe Passing bill on the third reading. Thanks to each of you who contacted your senator: you helped make it happen!Before it passed, Senator Patrick proposed two changes which were adopted in the final version of the bill. First, the safe passing provision would only apply when weather conditions allow. Second, the Senate removed the penalties for harassing and taunting. CTC has concerns over both amendments.
The House version of the bill was passed unanimously by the Transportation committee, with two amendments. The first amendment limits the safe passing provision to wider roads. For example, if your car breaks down on a four-lane road, motorists would be required to pass you safely; but if you break down on a two-lane road, they may not be.The second amendment removed the "right hook" provision, which would require a motorist making a right-hand turn to yield to a vulnerable user, such as a pedestrian, before turning. Given the prevalence of motorists turning right while looking left, this provision remains important, and we hope it comes back.
The House version has not yet gone to the floor. That means our legislators retain the opportunity to strengthen the bill prior to voting on it. We hope they will. If you agree, be sure to tell your state representative.
Please visit this CTC forum thread for legislative updates on the Safe Passing bill.
MTB Law Girl has more on the changes made to the House version of the bill. Assuming it passes as well, there will be a conference committee to work out the differences. As always, there's never a better time than now to contact your legislators and let them know how you feel about bills like this. BikeTexas has more.
New frontiers in social networking and law enforcement.
Milwaukee's department is one of a growing number of police and fire agencies turning to social networking Web sites such as Twitter, which lets users send text-message "tweets" to a mass audience in 140 characters or less. The tweets can be read on the Web or on mobile phones within seconds.Some departments use Twitter to alert people to traffic disruptions, to explain why police are in a certain neighborhood or to offer crime prevention tips. Others encourage leads on more pressing matters: bomb scares, wildfires, school lockdowns and evacuations.
[...]
One risk of Twitter is that anyone can go on the site and claim to be the cops. In March, the Texas attorney general's office shut down a phony Twitter account called "Austin PD," which had about 450 followers and used the official city seal.
The culprit has not been arrested, so his or her intent is not yet known. Mainly the tweets were in a joking vein, such as "Warming up my radar gun for SXSW," a reference to Austin's South By Southwest music conference.
But the potential for more dangerous misinformation worries Craig Mitnick, founder of Nixle LLC, which offers what it calls a secure "municipal wire" that public agencies can use instead of Twitter to broadcast updates.
Web sites like Twitter or Facebook are "meant for social purposes and not for trusted information," Mitnick said. "It's a bombshell waiting to explode."
[Milwaukee police spokeswoman Anne E.] Schwartz pointed out that anyone concerned about the validity of the Milwaukee police posts on Twitter can call the department, and she said most of its posts direct readers back to the police Web site as well.
I could be wrong, but I think the fake "Austin PD" example will turn out to be an exception. Twitter is sufficiently easy to use that I think most law enforcement agencies will adopt it sooner rather than later. Plus, how hard is it really to verify that a given account is legit? If nothing else, I'd expect that any new law enforcement-related Twitter sighting will get checked out via traditional media, many of whom have enthusiastically jumped on the Twitter bandwagon or by crowdsourcing pretty quickly. I seriously doubt that any copycat attempts will be nearly as successful as "Austin PD" was. There may be value in a product like Nixle - I'm not familiar with it, so I can't offer a judgment of it - but I think calling Twitter and Facebook a potential bombshell for law enforcement is a serious overbid.
There were a lot of bills passed yesterday by one chamber or the other. My mailbox is full of press releases touting them. I'm going to go ahead and print them beneath the fold as a roundup. A few bills that got notice in the media:
- The Tim Cole Act passed out of the House.
Texans wrongfully convicted of crimes will get a much larger paycheck from the state for their incarceration under a bill tentatively approved by the state House today.Wrongfully convicted persons currently are paid $50,000 in two installment payments. The new proposal would pay $80,000 per year of wrongful incarceration. An identical measure by Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, is pending in the Senate.
"Think for a few moments about walking in their shoes," Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, one of the authors of HB 1736, told his colleagues.
[...]
The measure is known as Tim Cole Act to honor a former Texas Tech student wrongfully convicted of sexual assault. Cole died in prison from an asthma attack in 1999 - about halfway through a 25-year sentence.
"This bill cannot make people whole. But we can do better," Anchia said.
The measure passed on a voice vote without opposition and prompted applause in the chamber.
The record vote on third reading (PDF) was 136-1. I noted Anchia's bill last month. We'll see if it passes muster with Governor Perry. Grits has more.
- Ignoring a mandatory evacuation order for a hurricane and then needing a rescue may cost you in the future.
More than 20,000 people stayed on Galveston Island last year despite a mandatory evacuation order as Hurricane Ike approached the Texas coast. Allison Castle, spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Pery, said there were 3,540 rescues in the region by state and local authorities, and the U.S. Coast Guard."They have that right to remain if they choose to," said bill author Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas. "But they stay at their own peril, and they stay with the possibility that if recovery is necessary to preserve their lives, they'd pay the related cost.
"And that's potentially a lot of money."
The cost of a helicopter rescue is about $4,400 an hour.
I believe the bill in question is SB12, which passed unanimously on third reading. I agree with the principle of the bill, though I wonder what mechanism will be used to collect the fees from the people who will need such rescues. What if they claim they tried but were unable to get out? There will be an interesting legal battle over this some day, I expect.
- Not a bill, but the Senate budget conferees were announced. No word yet on the House contingent.
There were more bills passed, and we can expect a lot more action in the coming weeks. Click on for the press releases.
From Edinburg Politics:
For the first time, Texas government would be required to invest key resources, including financial support, to help bring a federal Veterans Administration Hospital to the Rio Grande Valley, thanks to a bill by Rep. Ismael "Kino" Flores, D-Palmview, which was approved by the House of Representatives on Thursday, April 23.Flores' proposal, House Bill 2217, was passed unanimously by the full House, and now will go to the Senate for their review and action.
According to the bill analysis of Flores' measure, HB 2217 would amend the Government Code to require the Texas Veterans Commission and the Department of State Health Services to work with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and any other appropriate federal agency to propose that the federal government establish the VA Hospital.
"By bringing the resources and expertise of these two state agencies into this partnership, we could wind up having the state government provide the land and build the VA Hospital, and have the federal government pay to operate and maintain the hospital," Flores envisioned.
From State Rep. Armando Walle:
Today, State Representative Armando Walle (D-Houston) passed House Bill 1633, a comprehensive graffiti reform bill, out of the Texas House of Representatives. House Bill 1633 requires graffiti offenders to complete a minimum number of community service hours and to provide restitution to the victim, updates the graffiti code to include all forms of paint and enhances penalties for three-time offenders to a state jail felony."My graffiti reform bill requires graffiti offenders to complete community service and gets tough on the offenders who won't learn from their mistakes," said Rep. Walle. "I was proud to have the support of Chairman Pete Gallego, the members of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee and the Texas House of Representatives on this important bill."
House Bill 1633 was amended during the committee and floor debate process and includes the following four provisions:
* Requires graffiti offenders to complete a minimum number of community service hours;
* Requires graffiti offenders to complete restitution to the property victim;
* Amends the graffiti code to include all types of paint, not just aerosol paint; and
* Enhances penalties for repeat graffiti offenders by adding a "three strikes --you're out" policy making the third graffiti offense a state jail felony."Graffiti crime is a serious problem for our community and our state," said Rep. Walle. "My bill will force offenders to clean up their mess and give back to the community they defaced, deterring future offenses."
Representatives from the Houston Police Department, the City of San Antonio, the Houston Food Bank, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Council to Prevent Diplomacy, the Texas Municipal League and the Texas Apartment Association registered their support for House Bill 1633 when it was heard last month in the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.
From State Rep. Garnet Coleman:
I am excited to report that the Texas House passed legislation - House Bill 51- that has the potential to create 7 new tier one universities in the state. As a long time advocate of increasing Texas' investment in university research programs, I joined my colleague, Representative Dan Branch, by joint authoring HB 51 earlier this session. This bill would let seven public universities- including the University of Houston - compete for a new pool of state funds if they can attract major research grants, major endowment gifts, and top research faculty and staff.Sadly, Texas currently has only two public universities classified as tier one institutions even though we have the second highest population in the nation. Texas students deserve more nationally respected options. The development of more top tier universities would open up seats of excellence available for Texas students, and would make our state more nationally and globally competitive.
The Legislative Study Group, a House Caucus that I chair, released an analysis and recommendations on the state of higher education in Texas last year. To read that report, click here.
HB 51 is sound public policy that is good for Texas students and Texas families. I am committed to improving the quality and accessibility of education to the people of Texas. I will continue to keep you up to date on this issue as session progresses.
From State Rep. Jessica Farrar:
I am happy to report that I passed HB 1793 out of the Texas House earlier today. This bill requires that municipal court and justice of the peace judges that hear certain cases involving juveniles receive training on child welfare issues and the Federal Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA).My work in the community has taught me that juveniles that go before these judges many times have family problems or other issues in their lives that contribute to their problems with the law. I'd like to provide our judges with the information and preparation they need in order to help our youth get the help they need to stay out of future problems with the courts. I included the Federal Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act because youth receiving special education are disproportionately represented in judicial proceedings. Thank you to those of you that advocated on behalf of this bill and all bills that deal with children's issues.
From State Rep. Mike Villarreal:
Today the House of Representatives passed House Bill 415, legislation by Rep. Mike Villarreal to expand the number of small businesses that can establish on-site child care for their employees. The bill builds on legislation that Rep. Villarreal passed in 2007 to create the child care permit program for businesses with less than 50 employees. HB 415 aligns the program with the state definition of a small business by including businesses with less than 100 employees."As a parent, I know that so many of us struggle to balance the demands of work and family," said Rep. Villarreal. "This bill provides a new option for safe and affordable child care for many working families."
The state has struggled to develop policies to meet the child care needs of working parents. For example, over 30,000 children are currently on the state's waiting list for subsidized child care. The legislation does not aspire to meet the child care needs of all working families, but seeks to provide another option for some working families.
The bill was inspired by the working mothers at Guerra DeBerry Coody, a San Antonio public relations firm. The company has established an on-site child care center for employees' children and worked with Rep. Villarreal to develop state policies to facilitate such centers. The Wall Street Journal and Winning Workplaces recently named Guerra DeBerry Coody as one of the 15 "Top Small Workplaces" nationwide.
The statute includes a number of safety measures, including inspection by the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), criminal background checks and training standards for staff, a requirement to maintain at least one adult for every four children, and limits on the number of hours per day and per week that a parent can be away from the workplace.
"This legislation is a win for everyone involved. It helps small businesses recruit and retain employees, gives parents an accessible child care option, and allows children to spend time in a safe environment near their parents," noted Rep. Villarreal.
The Texas House on Friday voted unanimously on a plan making it easier for the University of Houston to gain elite status by gradually becoming a national "tier-one" research institution.Houston, the country's fourth largest city, deserves a public tier one university, said. Rep. Ellen Cohen, D-Houston, a member of the House Higher Education Committee.
"A tier-one university will attract that much more in the way of research and all the types of things that you can accomplish when you have tier one status," she said.
Texas has two public tier-one schools -- Texas A&M and the University of Texas at Austin. The lack of additional elite universities creates enrollment pressures at UT and A&M and causes a net loss each year of 6,000 high-achieving Texas high school graduates who leave for a top-tier university in another state.
Texas has identified seven emerging tier-one universities. Texas Tech, the University of Houston and the University of Texas at Dallas are generally considered in the upper echelon from which the next tier one university will emerge, said House Higher Education Chairman Dan Branch, R-Dallas, author of HB 51, which requires Senate action before it heads to Gov. Rick Perry.
A Legislative Study Group report (PDF) from last year showed that those seven schools weren't all that far off financially from meeting Tier I status. If the Lege budgets the $50 million Rep. Branch mentions for this bill, that would help a couple of them get there. There's a lot more that can and should be done, but this is a good first step. I've got a press release from Rep. Garnet Coleman on the House passage of HB51 beneath the fold, and Postcards has more.
In related news, the Senate Higher Education Committee took action on the matter of tuition.
Senate Bill 1443, by Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, who chairs the panel, would limit increases in tuition and mandatory fees at the 35 institutions in various ways depending on a school's current charges, recent increases and other circumstances. The limits include the inflation rate, 5 percent, $315 a year and $630 a year. The amount of legislative appropriations is also factored into the calculations.
That's a key, as I've said before. We deregulated tuition so the state could cut its appropriations to the schools. We can't now turn around and limit their ability to set tuition if we don't make up the funding. I don't know if SB1443 is adequate to that task, but at least it takes the need into account.
State Rep. Garnet F. Coleman (D-Houston) applauds the Texas House of Representatives for passing legislation - House Bill 51- that would create more tier one universities in Texas.Rep. Coleman was a joint author to House Bill 51 by Rep. Dan Branch, which would let seven public universities compete for a new pool of state funds if they can attract major research grants, major endowment gifts, and top research faculty and staff.
"Texas currently has only two public universities classified as tier one institutions, even though we have the second highest population in the nation," said Representative Coleman. "We are lagging far behind other states with similar populations."
"Texas students deserve more nationally recognized research institutions," said Representative Coleman. "The development of more top tier universities would open up seats of excellence available for Texas students, and would make our state more nationally and globally competitive."
What the Mayoral hopefuls think about expanded gambling in Texas, in particular for the Houston area, is an interesting question, but I'm not sure it's a relevant one.
Three candidates for Houston mayor bobbed and weaved today as they were asked about government issues during a video-taping of this weekend's Red, White & Blue program on KUHT Channel 8.Republican Gary Polland, who co-hosts with Democrat David Jones, mentioned that the legislature is considering a bill allowing local government to conduct elections on whether to have legalized gambling in their areas, beyond what the state has now. If the bill passes, should Houston, which once was home to a football team called the Gamblers, have more gambling, especially now that cities are scrambling for new revenue sources?
Councilman Peter Brown: "I think we ought to look at term limits (instead)."
City Controller Annise Parker: "I don't know about gambling necessarily in Houston . . . I have long thought since Ike that it would be of great benefit to Galveston to be the first city in Texas to have casino gambling."
(Of course, Galveston did have casino gambling, legal or not, through the 1950s).
Lawyer Gene Locke: "To me the operative word is that we should have a local referendum . . . I'm a big proponent of letting the people decide."
Maybe I've missed something, but the only election I'm sure will accompany an expansion of gambling bill would be a state constitutional amendment referendum. I've looked through my archives and don't recall seeing anything about local option elections. There are plenty of gambling-related bills out there, so it's entirely possible that one or more of them have such provisions, I just can't say I've seen them. I think if anything gets through, it's likely to be one big omnibus bill that the casino and racetrack interests can both agree on. Such a bill is still in flux and may never reach the House floor, but that's what's out there. I'm wondering if this is what Polland had in mind, or if he was referring to a different bill.
In any event, this post was worth linking to for this bit of poignancy:
Candidate Roy Morales was not invited to the taping because, the hosts said, the studio can only accommodate three guests at a time.
Poor Roy. Poor, poor Roy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I have so much respect for The Onion for its ability to stay ahead of the satire curve.
Rudy Giuliani is declaring war on gay marriage -- vowing to use his strong opposition of it against the Democrats if he runs for governor next year. The former mayor, in an extended interview with The Post, also predicted that Gov. Paterson's high-profile effort to legalize gay marriage would anger many New Yorkers and spark a revolt that could help sweep Republicans into office in 2010.[...]
"Marriage, I believe, both traditionally and legally, has always been between a man and a woman and should remain between a man and woman," said Giuliani, who has been married three times.
I think he meant "between a man, a woman, and the man's mistress". I mean, that's been his experience with matrimony. Perhaps he could compare notes with Newt Gingrich to be sure. Thanks to Matt Yglesias for the link.
Vince writes about a bill that is of great interest to all us bloggers.
On Monday, the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee will hold a public hearing on a bill which will give Texas bloggers and citizen journalists some much-needed protections under Texas law.The committee will take public testimony on House Bill 4237 by State Rep. Aaron Pena (D-Edinburg).
This bill gives bloggers and citizen journalists the same protections that the mainstream media has when it comes to covering matters of "public concern," such as legislative proceedings, school board meetings, and the actions of state officials.
Under current law, commonly known as the "Privileged Matters Clause" of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code (Sec. 73.002), coverage by the mainstream media of matters of "public concern" such as those listed above cannot be used as grounds for a libel action.
Texas bloggers and citizen journalists, however, do not have similar protections. In theory, if a politician or officeholder wanted to cause a blog a great deal of problems, he or she could file a libel or slander lawsuit over writings discussing a matter of "public concern." It would then be up to the court system-after, no doubt, significant expense for the blogger or citizen journalist-to determine whether or not the "Privileged Matters Clause" applies to bloggers.
Texas bloggers have been fortunate in that no one has been forced to be a test case for this yet. Rep. Pena's bill ensures that no Texas blogger or citizen journalist ever will. It gives us the same protections as the mainstream media in this regard.
I'm just a hobbyist. I don't sell ads, I'm not trying to make a living from this. What Vince describes is a situation that would cause me a lot of hardship. I think in 2009, the definition of "journalism" and "journalist" are fluid enough to include people like me and what I do. I support the passages of HB4237, and I hope you will as well. Click over to Vince's site for a lot more details about this, including how you can register your opinion at Monday's hearing. Thanks very much.
More new music - more free downloads, more paid-for downloads, more CDs I hadn't had as part of a playlist yet. You know the drill, so here we go.
1. So Young And In Love - Bruce Springsteen
2. Steel on Steel - J. Tillman
3. Buns O' Plenty - Isaac Hayes
4. This Summer - Kim Novak
5. Texasee - Luke Powers
6. Bring It On Down To My House - Willie Nelson & Asleep At The Wheel
7. Is This Really What It's Come To? - Port O'Brien
8. 100 Days, 100 Nights - Sharon Jones & The Dap-Kings
9. Without Love - Southside Johnny & The Asbury Park Jukes
10. I Can't Turn You Loose - Was (Not Was)
And today I bought myself an iPod Touch, which among other things will have room for all my music, at least for now. So hopefully soon I'll be able to do Random Tens based on the entire collection and not just whatever playlist I've generated to fill up the Mini. Woo hoo! What are you listening to this week?
Lonnie Allsbrooks, the most recent entrant in the race for City Council At Large #1, sent a missive to Swamplot about problems he's had trying to open a second establishment with a beer and wine license. It's not easily excerpted, so just go read it for yourself. Two things I have to say:
1. What I know about the Heights being dry is that it's because the formerly independent city that once was the Heights was dry, and that its annexation by Houston didn't change that. As far as I know, an election would need to take place to overturn that. I remember seeing a map once that showed the dry/not dry boundaries, but I don't recall where I saw it. If anyone can shed a little light on that, I'd really appreciate it.
2. The race for At Large #1 is now officially more fun than it was before. Read the Swamplot post and you'll understand.
UPDATE: An email to Whitmarsh's list reminds me that Beer Island had a Tommy Thomas sign on it last year. That wasn't exactly in touch with area sentiment.
You have to say this about Governor Perry: He never goes off message, no matter how ridiculous that message may be.
Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday re-stated his opposition to legislation that would allow the state to accept federal stimulus dollars for expanded unemployment programs. A key part of Perry's argument is that once Texas expands the pool of people who are eligible for unemployment benefits, there will be no changing the program back to its current guidelines. (While the federal stimulus law says that states cannot insert a sunset provision that would automatically end the expanded benefits at a certain point, state legislatures can choose to revert back to the previous parameters of their programs)."I've never seen anything generally done away with once it becomes law so I wouldn't think this one would be any different," Perry told a gaggle of reporters after a speech Wednesday.
I asked Perry about 2003, when lawmakers famously cut a number of programs in order to cope with a $10 billion budget shortfall.
"Ronald Reagan said that there's nothing more permanent than a temporary government program," Perry responded. "I think that is a very wise statement and I will stand by that. Cutting government programs that are put in place that are entitlements are almost impossible to change."
I just want to point out that Perry's legislative director, Ken Armbrister, said those exact words about "temporary government programs" two months ago in testimony about the unemployment insurance funds. Like I said, always on message.
Is it almost impossible to cut a government program?In 2001, the Legislature created a $1,000 stipend for teachers to pay for health insurance. In 2003, the Legislature cut it back to $500. And in 2006, it was rolled into teachers' salaries to help lawmakers and Perry inflate the size of a teacher pay raise.
Between 2003 and 2007, the Legislature cut the utility assistance program for low-income Texans from $150 million to $15 million.
The Legislature created the Children's Health Insurance Program in Texas in 1997. In 2003, the Legislature cut vision, dental and mental health benefits, while increasing the frequency with which families had to enroll.
Lawmakers cut payments to doctors seeing Medicaid and CHIP patients in 2003.
You get the idea. And Perry said when announcing that he would not accept the stimulus dollars, "Texas overcame a $10 billion deficit in 2003 because we decided to reduce government spending," Perry said in March.
Said House Democratic Leader Jim Dunnam, "The governor didn't have any difficulty repealing CHIP eligibility and throwing 250,000 children off of health insurance. Maybe he has amnesia."
It's not amnesia, it's good old-fashioned dishonesty. Maybe the key is to make the UI changes permanent, since we don't seem to have any problems discontinuing permanent government programs when the mood strikes us.
In addition to being dishonest about unemployment insurance and the stimulus money, Perry is also a hypocrite as the Statesman points out. Yes, I know, I'm as shocked as you are.
Perry uses taxpayer money -- he asked for $260 million for the next two-year budget cycle -- from the [Texas Enterprise Fund] to attract businesses to Texas. A principal measure of success is how many jobs a new employer creates.What's interesting here is that, as The Associated Press reported last week, companies that have received money from the fund are now allowed to count part-time workers in toting up the number of people they have hired.
But one of Perry's objections to accepting the federal stimulus money for unemployment compensation is that it would allow part-time workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own to receive prorated unemployment insurance benefits. A typical example is a spouse who works part-time because of children, loses her job and needs unemployment benefits until she can find another job.
So, it's fine by Perry to count part-time workers if it means helping an employer get public money, but if the employer lays off those part-timers in a recession, too bad for them. There are few better examples of the governor's high regard for business interests and lack of interest in ordinary people.
Here's a link to that AP story, which I missed when it came out. I really don't think there's anything that needs to be added to this.
One of Sen. Rodney Ellis' many criminal justice reform bills has passed the Senate.
Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, won Senate approval of a measure intended to encourage the recording of police interrogations. Ellis said his Senate Bill 116 arose out of concern that convicts freed due to recovered DNA evidence have said they were initially forced into confessions.The approved measure provides that, when practical, a custodial interrogation should be recorded, in its entirety, using audio-visual equipment or audio equipment. It requires the Texas Department of Public Safety to adopt rules for providing funds or electronic recording equipment to law enforcement agencies.
Ellis called the change, headed to the House, "a very modest step in the right direction."
Senators acted after Ellis fielded questions from Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who expressed concern that the failure of a police officer to record an interview might be exploited by defense attorneys.
"I don't want this to be a big loophole that you could drive a truck through to get people off" from criminal charges, Patrick said. He added that he supports Ellis's intent.
Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, aired similar concerns.
I guess I'm more concerned about the entirely real possibility of an innocent person being convicted on a coerced confession. Like Richard Danziger, some of whose jurors wrote an op-ed this past Sunday regretting their actions, which they wouldn't have done had they had the better information that a videotaped interrogation would have provided. How much do Sens. Patrick and Huffman, the two No votes against SB116, care about situations like that?
Grits notes just how off point Patrick's questions were. This is all about Republican primary politics, where it's better to convict a bunch of innocent people than to take any risk that you might not convict a guilty person. The House companion bill is somewhat stronger than what SB116 wound up being, so perhaps that step forward Sen. Ellis referred to can be a little bigger. Floor Pass has more.
I didn't get to this last week, but City Controller and Mayoral candidate Annise Parker announced the creation of a new website that would track what stimulus dollars are coming to Houston and how they're being spent. The website is here. It's pretty basic - just links to PDFs and spreadsheets detailing what's being allocated to Houston - but as long as that information is kept up to date, it should be useful. The State Comptroller has a similar website to track stimulus dollars in Texas. As the Observer notes, the grants and loan opportunities section will be of interest to a lot of folks. As the expression goes, this is your tax money at work, so check them out.
I ask a question about secession.
Is that really what the GOP base is about these days?
I get an answer.
Do you think Texas would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States of America?US: 61
Independent nation: 35Democrats: US 82, Ind 15
Republicans: US 48, Ind 48
Independents: US 55, Ind 40
That sound you hear is me officially ceasing any attempt to try to understand the mind of a Republican primary voter. Hey, remember when not wearing a flag pin meant that you were a traitor who hated America? Boy, those were the days.
There's more polling data at that link, much of which is summarized by BOR. You can go there and see the numbers, for what they're worth. I just wanted to marvel at this particular factoid.
Here's what you see for candidates for the US Senate in Texas for the 2009-10 election cycle. I've removed the two incumbents plus candidates from previous cycles who are sitll filing finance reports.
RepublicansName Raised Spent Net Cash Debts
=======================================================
Ames Jones 49,800 30,369 164,662 0
Shapiro 34,077 99,226 310,407 16,500
Williams, M 206,335 92,377 113,957 51,426
Williams, R 348,081 90,479 388,628 200,501Total 628,293 412,451 977,654 268,427
DemocratsName Raised Spent Net Cash Debts
=======================================================
White 1,867,163 472,119 2,131,638 32,890
Sharp ??? ??? ??? ???
Putting it another way, Bill White raised three times as much as the four Republican candidates combined. Take out the loans, and it's more like five times as much. He also has more than twice the cash on hand.
So, yeah, I think you can say the Democratic candidates have the early financial lead. Admittedly, Florence Shapiro is hamstrung by the current legislative session; her second quarter numbers will likely be weak as well, especially if there's a special session. I don't think it would have made that much difference, however.
And of course all this is before we take into account what John Sharp did. The FEC still doesn't have Sharp's details, but BOR's David Mauro has the scoop:
$515,155.00 - Total contributions other than loans
$514,955.00 - Net contributions other than loans
$2,001,678.10 - Loans made or guaranteed by the candidate
I was sent PDFs with this info shortly thereafter, so I'm sure the FEC page will be updated to reflect this information. The good news for Sharp is that if you subtract the loan money he still outraised the four Republicans. Needless to say, though, that's nowhere near as impressive as the huge haul he said he had at the deadline. No wonder he clammed up completely after that.
Now this is just the first quarter of a cycle that I believe will go on for at least two full years; more if KBH loses in either race in 2010 and decides to stick it out in DC. Maybe White can't maintain this pace, maybe Sharp can pick it up; for sure the Republicans, especially Shapiro, can do better than this. As Joe Sheehan likes to say at the Baseball Prospectus, you can't judge a team's season by the first few weeks. We'll know soon enough who will have the funds they need to compete.
Former Congressman Martin Frost thinks Rick Perry has a good shot at winning his primary against Sen. Hutchison.
Perry, who won with less than 40 percent in a four-way general election field in 2006, is not popular with the general voting public in Texas. He is, however, the darling of the far-right wing that dominates the Republican primary electorate. Chances are that he may defeat Hutchison in a mean, ugly, down-and-dirty primary next March.
Most of the piece is a 10,000-foot overview of the race and an intro to Tom Schieffer, and Frost never gives a reason why he thinks Perry might win, so take this for what it's worth. For a Republican view of that primary as it stands now, here's PoliTex:
In response to our earlier post, Matt Mackowiak, a former spokesman for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison sent us his thoughts on his old boss's chances against Gov. Rick Perry next year. Mackowiak argues that Perry's unlikely to beat Hutchison and his secession remarks have only hurt him."No one in Austin who is not employed by Gov. Perry thinks that he will beat Sen. Hutchison and there is a very large and growing number of skeptics who doubt that Perry will actually run for a third full term after ten years in office," Mackowiak said. "Sen. Hutchison has higher approval ratings, higher name ID, will have more money raised, and she has an ability to bring new voters into an open primary in Texas that Perry will not have by appealing to a narrow sliver of the base with his recent 'secession' comments."
Meanwhile, James Bernson, who was Hutchison's campaign press secretary in 2006, says in a recent online column that, via his Tea Party appearances and secession remarks, "Perry has seized the momentum and is on fire with a large section of the Republican Party base, not just in Texas, but nationally. And it will be the wing of the party most important in the primary."
Obviously, I'm a bystander to this fight. They're not competing for my vote, and they don't have any particular reason to care how I view them. So with that noted, let me say that this is looking a lot like a one-sided battle so far. Perry has been on the offensive, and has thrown all of the punches. I find it fascinating how little KBH has had to say about things like Perry's rejection of the UI stimulus funds and more recently his whole bizarre secession obsession. I can understand the former - she did vote against the stimulus package, after all - but the latter just confounds me. Is that really what the GOP base is about these days? Is she really not capable of drawing a distinction between herself and Perry on stuff like this? Or does she perhaps think that it's better to give Perry as much rope as he needs to hang himself. Staying quiet for now, not just on stupid things like secession but on just about everything - sending out tough-sounding fundraising letters doesn't really count - may be the smart thing to do, but it sure strikes me as a deep position to take. Just seems like a risky strategy to let your opponent define the terms of the debate.
That's my outsider's view, anyway. I'll add that while Perry is clearly taking the initiative, and is spending a bunch of time talking to his natural allies, it's not clear to me that he's reaching out beyond the base he already has. We know a substantial number of Republicans refused to vote for him in 2006. Have any of his antics brought them back into his camp, or have they reinforced the reasons why they abandoned him in the first place? I have no idea, and I doubt that publicly-available polling data will give us any insight.
And I still think KBH is going to do whatever it is she's going to do for her campaign without resigning from the Senate. I think she's boxed in on that, from her junior colleague Sen. Cornyn as well as from Perry, who I continue to believe would bash her relentlessly for putting the Senate in play for a filibuster-proof Dem majority. That, unlike the secession crap, is something that I think would play for a much wider audience.
Finally, I do think all this has the potential to be a real opportunity for the Democrats. That will require a candidate who can rally the troops, who can look good in comparison to the Kay 'n' Rick Show, and who can raise enough money to get that message out. Quite the tall order, but doable, at least this far out from November. Maybe that's Tom Schieffer, as Frost wants you to believe - I'm keeping an open mind, but he's got to prove it to a wider audience than me - and maybe that's not. Maybe Sen. Van de Putte will run, and if so maybe she'll have the fundraising chops to really compete. All I know is the sooner a Democratic candidate can start affecting the terms of the debate, the better. BOR has more.
Mark your calendars for Monday, April 27, for that's when HR480, the resolution filed by State Rep. Lon Burnam back in February that called for the House to begin the impeachment process against Judge Sharon Keller, gets a hearing. From Burnam's press release:
"It is important that the committee be made aware of the public's desire for impeachment," Mr. Burnam said. "I encourage anyone who wishes to see justice done in this matter to come to room E2.010 in the capitol on Monday afternoon and register 'for' House Resolution 480."The impeachment resolution stems from Judge Keller's alleged violation of the Court's practice of remaining open on scheduled execution nights. On September 25, 2007, the judge instructed court staff to refuse appeal filings from lawyers for death row inmate, Michael Richard.
Richard's appeal was based on announcements made by the United States Supreme Court the morning of they scheduled execution. Although Richard was executed that night, the Court of Criminal Appeals (over which Judge Keller presides) later granted two stays of execution based on the same arguments Richard's lawyers attempted to present.
If passed, HR 480 calls on the House of Representatives to form a committee to investigate Judge Keller for "gross neglect of duty and willing disregard for human life." If the House finds cause for impeachment, a trial would then be held in the State Senate.
The State Ethics Commission is also currently investigating Judge Keller; a hearing has been scheduled for August 16th to investigate the judge's actions in the Richard Case. In addition, the Ethics Commission is investigating Judge Keller's omission of 20 million dollars in Dallas area real estate holdings from mandatory disclosure forms filed with the Commission.
Something to tide you over till August, if nothing else. I'll be interested to see how the debate goes on this one, that's for sure.
I've said many times by now that the slow pace of this legislative session will threaten the prospects of many a bill. In some cases, that's a good thing.
After months with little or no action, Texas lawmakers are stirring up the emotional cauldron that always brews with abortion-related bills.A House committee was hearing testimony on a bill that would require women seeking abortions to first have an ultrasound and be shown the results. A Senate panel on Tuesday approved creating new "Choose Life" license plates.
With less than two months left in a session dominated by fights over voter identification bills, insurance and federal stimulus money, supporters of the major abortion-related bills are hoping they can whip their issue back to the forefront.
"There's time," said Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life. "It's kind of like an aircraft: Either you have altitude or you have speed. We have less altitude but I think we're getting speed before you crash ... It's going to be crunch time soon."
[...]
So far, the ultrasound bill has stalled in the Senate.
The bill by Sen. Dan Patrick, a Houston Republican and conservative radio talk-show host, would require women seeking an abortion to have the ultrasound but gives them the option of whether to view the images. It passed the Senate Health and Human Services committee but is stuck waiting for a full Senate vote that may never come.
[...]
In the House, the ultrasound bill has 59 out of the 150 House members signed on in support. It was in the lineup in the House State Affairs Committee on Tuesday.
Blake Rocap, legislative counsel for NARAL Pro-Choice of Texas, which opposes the ultrasound bill, predicts that's as far as it will go. House members are still congratulating themselves over passing a unanimous budget and won't want to peel back the lid on such an emotional issue, Rocap said.
Patrick's bill is SB182; its House companion is HB36, which had its committee hearing on Tuesday as noted, though no vote yet. That's probably the most pernicious anti-abortion legislation out there. If the clock runs out on it and the silly "Choose Life" license plates legislation, it's all to the good. Naturally, all bets are off in the event of a special session, as Governor Perry will surely not miss the chance to do a little overtime pandering to his base. But for now, on these matters, the sands through the hourglass are working in our favor.
Earlier this month, HISD agreed to broadcast its monthly meetings on its cable access station. While the promise of making their meetings more transparent to the public was appealing, it would seem there's still a few bugs in the system.
The capsule review of Houston ISD's first televised board meeting last Thursday is two thumbs down. It was neither good TV nor good public policy.Viewers were put through the sort of excruciating self-promotion and hyperbole that has given HISD a reputation for shameless "spin."
Spin is actually a kind word for what was old-fashioned, heavy handed propaganda by trustees.
It gets harsher from there. I still think this is a good and necessary idea, but clearly there's room for improvement in the execution. Thanks to Hair Balls for the tip.
Really interesting cover story in the Press about issues Prius drivers have had with their previously-beloved vehicles. Seems they have this strange habit of accelerating at unpredictable times, with the extra bonus of the brakes not working too well. I wish the story had gone into some of the technical details - surely there's a mechanic or an engineer somewhere with a theory as to what might be the cause of this - but it did get a variety of tales of failures from a bunch of people, some of whose experiences were pretty harrowing. You have to figure it's just a matter of time before a big lawsuit is filed. Anyway, it's a good read, so check it out.
Perhaps the biggest highlight of Dikembe Mutombo's career came during the 1994 playoffs when he was lying on the floor holding a ball in the air in joy after leading the Denver Nuggets to a titanic playoff upset of top-seeded Seattle.Mutombo found himself lying on the floor again Tuesday night, this time pondering the end of his career.
Mutombo, 42, was carried away on a stretcher in the first quarter of the Rockets' 107-103 loss to the Portland Trail Blazers in Game 2 with what he said was a career-ending left knee injury.
"It's over for me for my career," said Mutombo, who will be examined by team doctors when the Rockets return to Houston today.
An eight-time NBA All-Star and four-time Defensive Player of the Year, Mutombo is one of the game's great humanitarians and had a distinguished 18-year career with Denver, Atlanta, Philadelphia, New Jersey, New York and Houston.
"It's not something that I planned," he said. "All I can say right now is I had a wonderful run of 18 years and stayed injury-free. I thank God a lot for all this blessing and putting such great people around me for all of my career in the NBA. I'm just happy.
"I have to go out with my head high and not be disappointed and have no regrets. I have so many things I can be so thankful for over my 18 years."
Tiffany was a student at Georgetown while Mutombo played there for John Thompson. She says he was as popular and beloved then as he is here and as he has been at every stop in his NBA career. Thanks for all you've done, Deke. We'll all miss having you as part of the Rockets. ClutchFans has more.
The Lege has had a few opportunities to express its opinion about Governor Perry and his "leadership" this session. Passing the unemployment insurance bill, inserting the budget amendment that would strip funding from the Texas Enterprise Fund in the event of a veto of the UI bill, the Office of State-Federal Relations bill, that sort of thing. The Senate will get another chance today when the dentist in charge of the SBOE, Don McLeroy, comes up for a confirmation hearing as the chair of that agency. TFN Insider has the details.
Don McLeroy's appointment as chairman of the Texas State Board of Education finally gets a hearing in the Senate Nominations Committee on Wednesday (April 22). Gov. Rick Perry appointed McLeroy chairman in July 2007, after the last legislative session. So the Senate still has to confirm his appointment.It's unusual for the Senate to reject a governor's appointment. Even so, state lawmakers aren't happy with a state board that has become increasingly dysfunctional (and embarrassing) since the Bryan dentist's elevation to chairman. The board has disregarded established procedures, ignored state law, defied the Legislature and lurched from one "culture war" battle to the next. Most recently, of course, Chairman McLeroy led the board in opening the state's science curriculum to creationist attacks on evolution, wildly declaring: "I disagree with all these experts! Somebody has to stand up to these experts!"
The Nominations Committee will meet 30 minutes after the Senate adjourns for the day on Wednesday. The hearing, which will include testimony on other nominations as well, will be in the Senate chamber at the Capitol. Those who want to testify can register at the hearing.
Unless you're already at the Capitol it's probably too late to take any action to influence the committee. You can tune in to the Senate's live video feed to watch the hearings, though, which ought to be more interesting than the usual Senate business - looks like McLeroy is just now getting into the hot seat. I can't wait to see what comes out of this one.
The following press release hit my Inbox today:
Lonnie Allsbrooks announced his intent to become candidate for At-Large Position 1 for the City of Houston.Lonnie Allsbrooks, a successful small business owner from the Heights, has decided to run for the City of Houston At large Position 1. As a resident of Houston for the past 38 years, Lonnie Allsbrooks has come to value and appreciate this community, but has realized there is the potential for growth and change.
Lonnie stated, "The reason I am running for this position is to give the people of Houston a representative that is fair, honest, and genuinely willing to take the time to listen to the needs of the citizens of this community. I am that person."
Lonnie Allsbrooks currently resides in the Heights where he owns and operates his small business, Beer Island. He is also in the process of opening a small café in the Heights called The Trail Mix. After the encouragement and support from other small business owners, Lonnie is excited about his decision to run for city council and the possibility of making a difference in the Houston community.
Beer Island, for those not familiar with it, is on the southeast corner of Studewood and White Oak, catty-corner from Fitzgerald's. I attended a meeting of the Woodland Heights Civic Association a couple of years back after Beer Island and its across-Studewood neighbor the Sixth Street Bar and Grill opened at which the topic of discussion was the loud live music being played at those locations. I live about six blocks away, and there was one night I recall where I could sing along with the band from my front porch. The meeting was a bit contentious, but in the end everything appears to have been worked out - at least, I'm not aware of any current complaints, and I've not heard any more music from either of those location. That's all I know about Lonnie Allsbrooks, who joins a field that includes Herman Litt, Steve Costello, and fellow Heights resident Karen Derr.
As we know, the long-awaited Katy Freeway managed lanes opened this weekend. This story about its first day of rush-hour operation gives it positive reviews, but what interests me is this:
[Lisa Castaneda, a transportation engineer for the Harris County Toll Road Authority] spent the morning rush observing from the westernmost toll plaza, near Eldridge. She said the regular lanes had an average speed of about 20 mph, but the toll and HOV lanes were moving along at 60 mph."It seems that people got their money's worth if they chose that," Castañeda said.
Twenty miles an hour? We spent $2.8 billion adding all those lanes and six months after the grand opening traffic was that slow already? I mean, I expected it to bog down eventually, but not that quickly. Help me out here, commuters. Is this really how things are? Thanks.
You won't see this ad in Houston, but it is running in other parts of the state in support of solar energy and legislation to promote solar energy in Texas.
In honor of Earth Day today, ACT Texas gives us an update on three renewable-energy bills:
SB 545 - Senator Fraser: relating to the creation of a distributed solar generation incentive program.This bill creates a five-year incentive program, administered by electric utilities, for commercial and residential customers to increase the amount of distributed solar generation installed. The incentive program would be funded by a nominal monthly fee on residential, commercial and industrial customers. The program would generate an estimated $50 million per year and lead to approximately 70 MWs of on-site renewables by 2015.
HB278 - Representative Anchia: relating to energy demand and incentives for distributed renewable generation.
This bill creates incentive programs, administered by electric utilities, for commercial customers, residential customers, and homebuilders to build on-site solar and geothermal generation. It also sets the goal of an additional 2,000 MWs of generating capacity from distributed renewable energy sources to be installed by the state by 2020, and at least 1,000 MWs by 2015.
SB 541 - Senator Watson: relating to incentives for Texas renewable energy jobs and manufacturing.
Seeks to create renewable energy manufacturing jobs in Texas by giving extra credit for electricity produced by equipment that is made in Texas. The bill increases the goal for renewable energy and seeks to expand on Texas' success with wind power, by setting a 3,000 megawatt goal for non-wind renewable generation in Texas
SB545 passed out of the Senate yesterday, so that's good news. The biggest enemy of all these bills at this time is the clock, or more appropriately the calendar. Maybe with the budget passed we'll see some more action. As always, it's never a bad idea or a bad time to contact your Rep or Senator's office in support of a bill you favor. The US is already lagging behind the rest of the world in renewable energy production. We can and should do something about that right here in Texas.
I haven't really paid much attention to the Allen Stanford case, but this story about his plea to unfreeze some of his assets so he can pay for his legal representation caught my eye.
"All of Allen Stanford's money, all of his records, and most of his clothing and personal possessions were seized by the Receiver ... the same orders left him with no assets to retain counsel to represent him," according to a court filing on behalf of Stanford.Attorneys are asking the court for $10 million to be placed into an account in the name of famed Texas attorney Dick DeGuerin to pay for legal fees, expert witnesses, travel and other expenses to defend Stanford.
"The cost of Allen Stanford's representation in this Court and many others through the years it will take to conclude this litigation will almost certainly exceed $20 million," according to documents filed with a federal court in Dallas.
The problem, of course, is that this is money he allegedly stole from his investors. I know I'd be pretty pissed off if money that I'd lost was being used to pursue his defense and perhaps eventually his appeals. Stanford is of course entitled to a defense attorney who will zealously represent his interests, and that attorney is entitled to be compensated adequately. I guess I'm a little queasy about that entitlement extending to millions of what may be other people's dollars in order to pay one of the best attorneys around. I'm sure there must be some case law that addresses this question. Can anyone shed some light on that? Thanks.
In the meantime, my entirely free advice to Allen Stanford is to quit talking to the press. My advice to everyone else is to read the Houston Press cover story on the Stanford Financial Group from last week, and this Texas Monthly feature from the upcoming May issue. And am I the only one who wonders just what the heck it is about Mexia, Texas, that produced both Allen Stanford and Anna Nicole Smith?
Looks like Rick Perry has found his audience for secession talk: Ron Paul Nation.
If you don't feel like sitting through that (can't say I blame you), Bud Kennedy gives the capsule review:
[Paul calls] secession "very much an American principle" and criticizing the idea of "one nation . . . indivisible" as something thought up by a "socialist."
Secession is nothing new for Paul, who has waxed poetic in previous videos about an independent Texas with no income tax, no military draft and no interest in any military presence outside Texas.
I think that all pretty much speaks for itself, so for the pro-America response, here's John Sharp:
I think that would be more salient as part of a gubernatorial campaign. Timely, too - is anyone really going to remember any of this in 2011 or 2012 when that Senate seat is finally on the ballot? Be that as it may, good on Sharp for stating what should be the obvious. Burka has more.
I have three things to say about this:
So how does a former ambassador gird for a possible battle with the ever-black-hatted, cigar-chomping Kinky Friedman for the Democratic nod for governor?Campaign honchos who faced the finger-in-the-eye-of-the political-establishment candidate in 2006 don't mind dishing up some advice for Tom Schieffer.
"He's going to have to take Kinky very seriously," offered Robert Black, who worked for Republican Gov. Rick Perry. "Kinky has substantially better name ID than Mr. Schieffer does right now."
Mark Sanders, who worked for Carole Keeton Strayhorn: "Best thing to do with Kinky is to ignore him."
Jason Stanford, who worked for Democrat Chris Bell: "Catalog all the crazy things he's ever said as a politician and just deal with that. Ignore the sideshow."
Stanford quipped that the challenge for Schieffer -- who was ambassador under George W. Bush -- will be his similarities to the quirky musician and humorist: "We've got two white guys collecting Social Security who say they like George W. Bush. Now, does Tom Schieffer sell that he's not funny? That he only wears a hat when it's socially appropriate?" (Friedman is 64; Schieffer's 61).
Clay Robison, Schieffer's communications director, was the Austin bureau chief for the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News the last time Friedman ran. Now in the midst of the fray, Robison swung back: "Tom Schieffer will win the governor's race on his strong leadership ability and on issues important to Texans, not on a stream of one-liners. Tom Schieffer wants to lead, not entertain."
But don't forget the main bit of advice from Kinky's 2006 spokeswoman, Laura Stromberg: "Keep your sense of humor."
1. I guess this means Peggy Fikac will be taking over the Monday-morning-political-column duties. Welcome aboard, Peggy.
2. The advice proffered by Messrs. Black and Sanders should stand as the main reason why Democrats should not take political advice from Republicans.
3. My advice, for what it's worth, is simply this: The task at hand is to win a Democratic primary. The mission should be to demonstrate to Democratic voters why Tom Schieffer is the best option to be the Democratic nominee. The rest will take care of itself. Frankly, my advice to Kinky Friedman would be the same. Whoever does the best job of that - assuming nobody else who can do an even better job of it comes along - will win in March. The winner can worry about what to do after that then.
The Chron returns to the theme of inadequate representation of death row inmates.
Texas lawyers have repeatedly missed deadlines for appeals on behalf of more than a dozen death row inmates in the last two years -- yet judges continue to assign life-or-death capital cases and pay hundreds of thousands in fees to those attorneys, a Chronicle records review shows.Missing deadlines means their clients can be automatically denied constitutionally mandated reviews before their execution. Houston lawyer Jerome Godinich missed three recent federal deadlines, the Chronicle reported in March. One client was executed in February after the federal appeal was filed too late. In March, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals chastened Godinich for using the same excuse -- a malfunctioning after-hours filing machine -- for missing another deadline for a man still on death row.
A recent review of the Harris County Auditor's billing records and district court records shows Godinich remains one of the county's busiest appointed criminal attorneys, billing for $713,248, including fees for 21 capital cases. He was appointed to handle 1,638 Harris County cases involving 1,400 different defendants from 2006-March 2009, court records show.
He refused comment.
Godinich is not the only attorney to miss death row deadlines. A San Antonio lawyer failed to file four state appeals on time, according to opinions last year by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. A Fort Worth lawyer has missed both state and federal deadlines in at least five recent cases, though he sought and was granted more time to prepare on four of them, according to court records reviewed by the Chronicle.
The article goes on from there - it's all about how many deadlines various lawyers missed, and how much in fees they collected anyway. I'll say again, the lack of sanctions on the incompetent attorneys is the troubling aspect of this. Even if you don't punish the incompetents, I don't think it's too much to ask to not give them any more chances to screw up. But again, this is a matter of priorities, and the system doesn't really care about this. We can work to put judges in place who will care, but ultimately this has to be a matter of process. As long as it isn't, this story won't change.
I drive down White Oak every day to take the girls to preschool, so I've been going past a bunch of houses that have signs with "save our bungalow" messages on them, but I wasn't sure what all the fuss was about. Now I know.
Jack Preston Wood isn't sure now if his dream home is compatible with the property he made an offer on last year near the Houston Heights.What Wood didn't know when he entered a contract to buy the 1929 bungalow at 536 Granberry was that it is located in the recently designated Freeland Historic District.
The small neighborhood off White Oak Drive was platted by some of the developers of what is now the Heights Historic District. But what makes it unique in the city of Houston is that Freeland's original bungalow-style homes are virtually intact; only two of the original 37 have been lost.
Residents in the neighborhood are fighting to keep it that way. When word got out that Wood, a residential designer, wanted to tear down the bungalow, subdivide the lot and build two, four-story homes, neighbors organized a campaign to stop it.
The group spoke against the plans when they reached the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission in March, put out "save our district" signs and have since staged weekly protests at the corner of Granberry and White Oak Drive.
Even though city laws won't stop the redevelopment, Wood said there's no way he'll go through with those plans after speaking with some of the neighbors. But if they aren't amenable to something different, something he would consider compatible with the existing homes, then he may pull out of the deal altogether.
"If we can't find a way to get our dream to fit in there, then we won't close," Wood said.
Which, judging by the comments at Hair Balls and Swamplot, would clearly suit the remaining residents just fine. I just want to add a couple of points to the discussion.
One, in all of these homeowners-versus-developers stories, there are always a few people who advocate the position that folks like Jack Preston Wood should be free to do whatever they want with their property. The point I would make is that even in no-zoning Houston, we do have limits. It would be illegal for him to build, say, a strip club or a chemical plant there. Plenty of commercial projects get blocked or need to be drastically altered because of numerous regulations covering such mundane things as the number of available parking spaces. It's residential development that's far looser, and that's where these battles often erupt. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to believe there ought to be more restrictions on residential development, in a similar fashion to commercial development.
Second, the character of a neighborhood like the Freeland District has value to its residents. By tearing down a house that fits in with the neighborhood and replacing it with something completely different, some of that value is lost to the other residents. Again, those who would defend the developers in these scenarios often talk about their right to maximize the value of their properties. But how do you compensate those who believe their own values get diminished by that?
Finally, the Freeland Historic District (PDF) abuts the site of the long-controversial Viewpoint development - Granberry, and Frasier one block to its west, both terminate at the north end of the land where Viewpoint would be built, if it ever is. As such, I can't really blame the folks who live there if they feel like they're under siege.
The members of the Texas Progressive Alliance solemnly swear we will never secede. Click on for this week's roundup.
BossKitty at TruthHugger finds Texas Agencies 'undersight' totally unacceptable. Texas Agencies that toss 'seemingly viable' programs to the wind and provide no follow up to insure integrity are the fault of Texas legislators. Consolidation of some Agencies, specifically Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (TDMHMR), eliminated follow up after merging with Department of Aging and Disability Services. Follow the bread crumbs, Texas To Students With Disabilities, Educate Yourself or Become Slave Labor
The House passed its budget! Somewhat surprisingly, as Off the Kuff notes, it doesn't suck.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes that the Obama administration is doing the hard work to solve problems at our border. The right wingers, on the other hand, see only brown and white.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson points to the most recent nonsense from our member of Congress in TX-31, John Carter and right-wing extremists.
Justin at AAA-Fund Blog explores the possible Rice Baylor College of Medicine merger.
This week, Mayor McSleaze took issue with Governor 39%'s assertion that Texas could secede from the United States. Well, not so much 'took issue with' as 'completely showed to be false'. Check it out at McBlogger.
WhosPlayin attended local "TEA Party" gathering in Lewisville, TX. and brought back some videos.
It's "secede", not "suckseed", you morons. What is PDiddie at Brains and Eggs referring to?
Over at TexasKaos, Libby Shaw explains how Governor 37% got the confused with a gerbil who tangled with an electric wire and what has happened since.....
Check it out at Rick Perry, Gerbils and Electric Wires
Neil at Texas Liberal writes a comprehensive overview of the elections in India.
The Senate passed SB1569, the bill that accepts stimulus funding for unemployment insurance, by a 19-11 vote today. As Elise noted on Twitter, two Senators flipped to No for final passage; one other Senator was either absent or did not vote. We don't know who exactly the changed and missing voters were yet. For the record, the second reading vote went as follows:
Yeas: Averitt, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Gallegos, Harris, Hinojosa, Lucio, Ogden, Shapiro, Shapleigh, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Zaffirini.Nays: Fraser, Hegar, Huffman, Jackson, Nelson, Nichols, Patrick, Seliger, Williams.
The same group voted to suspend the rules so the bill could be brought to the floor. As predicted, the entire Harris GOP contingent voted against. The final margin of 19-11 means the Senate would not vote to override a Governor Perry veto if it comes to that and no one flips back; even if the absentee voted Yes it would be insufficient. So if there's the be any stick to induce Perry to sign this thing, it'll have to be the Yvonne Davis amendment.
Speaking of the House, HB2623 by Rep. Joe Deshotel, which is listed as "similar" to SB1569, had its committee report sent to Calendars on Friday. Given that the "identical" HB3153 by Rep. Tan Parker is still in committee, I'd say that's the bill to watch in the lower chamber. There's still time to allow for a veto override attempt, if they don't get bogged down. Patricia Kilday Hart has more, and a statement by Sen. Leticia Van de Putte is beneath the fold.
UPDATE: Via Postcards, the answer is that Sens. Shapiro and Estes switched their votes between second and third readings, and Harris was absent.
UPDATE: The Statesman has more on the prospects in the House.
Although there are six weeks left in the session, lawmakers need to finish a bill within the next month to attempt a veto override. During that period, the governor must veto a bill within 10 days of its final passage or it becomes law.Business and Industry Committee Chairman Joe Deshotel, D-Beaumont, said the House is "up against a wall" to get the bill to the governor.
"Every day now counts," said Deshotel, who will sponsor Eltife's bill in the House. "We can make it through if it doesn't stall somewhere."
It was unclear Monday which House committee will take up Eltife's bill and how long it will take to clear that committee and get to the floor for a vote. Then, assuming the governor vetoes the legislation, the hard work would begin in getting the support in both houses necessary to override a veto.
Given Perry's clear opposition and the jam-packed legislative schedule, Rep. Wayne Christian, R-Center, said it would be "irresponsible of us to waste the citizens' valuable time (taking up the measure) if the governor already says it is vetoed."
"Why should we kill other bills that might be able to help the citizens of Texas if we know that this is a nonproductive exercise of yelling at each other on the House floor?" said Christian, a leader of conservatives in the House.
Deshotel said the possibility of a veto should not deter the House because the policy issue is a critical one.
He also said the governor might not veto the bill if he sees that it has broad-based support from both Democrats and Republicans, including House Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie.
"The governor can always change his mind. I want to get the bill to the governor," Deshotel said.
Especially if the budget provision that moves money from the Texas Enterprise Fund to the unemployment insurance trust survives the budget conference committee. I'm sure the Governor has a fallback position prepared just in case. Speaking of that provision, a statement from Rep. Armando Walle, who was the initial author of that amendment, has been added beneath the fold.
Senator Van de Putte Statement on the Passage of SB 1569 Unemployment Insurance Modernization"I applaud the passage of SB 1569, which will modernize the unemployment insurance system and help more Texas families in need become eligible for benefits. We must help Texas families already devastated by this economic crisis and the 300,000 or so Texans expected to lose their jobs this year.
The passage of SB 1569 will eliminate barriers for part-time workers, a workforce often made up of women caring for their young children, by providing them access to benefits. This provision, along with others included in the legislation, will allow Texas to access upwards of $500 million in federal stimulus money targeted for this purpose.
I am proud to co-author this bill because I believe we need to govern based on the needs of Texas families. This money will help Texas families put food on the table, pay their mortgages, and keep their lights on.
This is a cause I have championed for several legislative sessions, and I couldn't be happier to watch it pass the Senate today.
I understand that others may see things differently, but the Texas Senate today voted to put Texas families first."
State Representative Armando Walle (D-Houston) passed three amendments to the appropriations bill during a 19-hour debate in the Texas House of Representatives that lasted from Friday, April 17 to Saturday, April 18. The Walle amendments will protect working families and small businesses during these tough economic times and provide more resources for needy students.Partnering with Chairwoman Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas), Rep. Walle passed an amendment which will guarantee increased funding to the Texas Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. Governor Rick Perry has opposed accepting $555 million in federal aid to assist laid off workers and prevent a tax hike on small businesses. The Davis/Walle amendment states that if the Governor does not accept the federal funds for unemployment benefits, then the assistance needed for workers and businesses will be paid for with $136 million out of his budget.
"This important measure will prevent a tax hike on small businesses while helping unemployed Texans get back on their feet," said Rep. Walle. "I was proud to stand with Chairwoman Davis in support of working Texas families."
Rep. Walle's education amendments will require the Texas Education Agency to study the high drop-out rates of students with limited English proficiency and methods to increase enrollment in the Child Nutrition Program, which provides free and reduced-price meals to students.
Over 15% of all Texas students are identified as limited English proficiency (LEP). Ninety-three percent of LEP students are Hispanic, and in the Houston Independent School District, the drop-out rate for Hispanics is 66%. "Properly educating and graduating LEP students is critical for Texas' prosperity and long-term economic stability," said Rep. Walle. "As the LEP population continues to grow, it is essential that these kids graduate high school, and that we do not let them fall between the cracks."
Across Texas, only 53% of children who receive free/reduced price lunches participate in the breakfast program. If participation increased to 60 percent, over 100,000 more low-income children would start the day with a healthy breakfast and the state would gain an additional $30 million in federal funds. "Ensuring that our most needy children receive a healthy meal is of the utmost importance," said Rep. Walle. "Children can not learn if they are hungry, and this amendment is a step towards getting more kids the nutrition they need and deserve."
Nice.
President Barack Obama on Thursday highlighted his ambition for the development of high-speed passenger rail lines in at least 10 regions, expressing confidence in the future of train travel even as he acknowledged that the American rail network, compared to the rest of the world's, remains a caboose.With clogged highways and overburdened airports, economic growth was suffering, Mr. Obama said from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, shortly before leaving for a weekend trip to Latin America.
"What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century," he said, "a system that reduces travel times and increases mobility, a system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity, a system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs."
Lots more on the White House blog, with a bigger picture of the map here. I think this has a lot of potential to reduce congestion on highways and at airports, as rail travel is very well suited to medium range trips. Flying times may be a little faster, but when you factor in the need to go through security, it evens out quite a bit. Trains can come into town centers as well, making them easier to get to as well as accessible by public transportation. And while it would be ideal, as expressed by President Obama in his intro statement, for people to be able to step off of a high speed train and onto a light rail or subway line, there's no reason why rental cars couldn't be available as well.
If you look at that map, you might notice an obvious omission in the routes. As Yglesias says:
It seems strange to build so much track in Texas and not manage to link Houston with Dallas.
It's a good thing, then, that there's talk of building our own SUPERTRAIN that would provide a connection between Dallas and Houston. Perhaps the powers that are working on that vision can tap into this one as well. And hey, as long as I'm wishcasting, let's throw in a Galveston connection, too. Seems to me if there was ever a time to make this happen, it's now.
Finally, I should note that the House budget includes $182 million for the rail relocation and improvement fund, which will support the bonding of about $1.8 billion in rail projects. A press release from State Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, who authored the amendment that appropriated these funds, is beneath the fold.
Representative Ruth Jones McClendon (D-San Antonio, House District 120) has gained approval by the House of Representatives to appropriate $182 million for the rail relocation and improvement fund, in floor action amending the state budget late Friday evening. Texas voters approved the creation of the Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund in a constitutional amendment election in 2005, following a previous enactment of legislation authored by McClendon to create the fund, subject to voter approval."Other than the first time I was sworn in as a Representative, this is quite possibly the single most thrilling moment I have experienced as a legislator and a member of the House Appropriations Committee. Even though the voters approved the establishment of this fund, obtaining legislative approval for the appropriations has been anything but easy. We will be working extremely hard to keep this funding in the final budget that will be voted out of the Legislature."
This $182 million appropriation for 2010-2011 will support the bonding of about $1.8 billion in rail projects. In 2007, a tentative rail relocation plan developed by the Department of Transportation projected the needs for Texas as being upwards of $17 billion. Supporters of rail relocation and improvement efforts emphasize that Texas needs a comprehensive transportation plan which includes rail relocation and improvement as good and sound public policy. Advocates promote relocating of heavy rail lines to increase community safety, decrease traffic congestion, reduce emissions affecting air quality, and help the economy by creating a more efficient flow of goods throughout Texas and across the U.S. "Because of increasing population needs, the transportation of passengers and cargo between the east and west coasts, and within Texas, will be increasingly necessary no matter how many roads or traffic lanes we build," McClendon said. "This is a great start toward meeting our future transportation needs."
Approval of this funding will allow the Department of Transportation to utilize funding from the State Highway Fund that is not dedicated to other constitutional fund usage, and requires finding by the comptroller that there exists at least $182 million more dollars in the Highway Fund in 2010-2011 than it held in 2008-2009. This assures that funding for highway projects will not suffer any reduction in funds to support the $182 million rail relocation appropriation. "This appropriation means that Texas will be putting some 'skin in the game' to obtain matching funds, so we can maximize our chances for obtaining rail transportation funds from the federal stimulus package."
During the 81st Session, Representative McClendon serves on the House Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on Transportation. She also serves as Chair of the House Committee on Rules & Resolutions. In addition, she serves on the Sunset Advisory Commission, which oversees regular review of all agencies under the auspices of the State of Texas. The 2009 Legislative Session is her seventh term serving District 120 in the Texas House; prior to that, she served as a City Council Member in San Antonio and as a juvenile probation office officer and administrator.
[A]ccording to the latest Houston Area Survey, fewer than half of Harris County residents believe homosexuality is morally wrong, 61 percent believe it's an innate characteristic rather than a lifestyle choice, and 43 percent believe gay marriages should have the same legal status as heterosexual ones -- up from 32 percent just two years ago.Every measure of support for gay rights has increased significantly in recent years, said Stephen Klineberg, the Rice University sociology professor who has directed the annual survey since 1982.
He attributed the change partly to changing individual attitudes, but mostly to the emergence of a new generation that grew up amid positive images of gay men and lesbians who no longer felt the need to conceal their sexual orientation.
Younger respondents to the survey, Klineberg said, were more likely to believe gay marriages should have the same legal status as heterosexual unions, to support allowing gays and lesbians to be school teachers, and to say they had a close personal friend who was gay or lesbian.
Anglo voters over 60 were most likely to oppose increased rights for gays, Klineberg said.
That's basically in line with polling data all around the country. Slowly but inexorably, the bulk of the people who think homosexuality is wrong are dying off, and they're being replaced by a generation that knows better. Great for the country, not so good for the Republican Party. I figure the GOP will eventually adapt. If not, their ultimate demise will have been well earned.
Note, by the way, that Kilneberg's survey covers all of Harris County. The City of Houston is surely more liberal than the county as a whole.
Ray Hill, a Houston gay activist, said he vividly remembers the disappointment felt in his community on the night of Jan. 19, 1985, when Houston voters overturned the anti-discrimination ordinance by a margin of greater than 4-1.Hill said gays and lesbians drove the change in attitudes by coming out of hiding, allowing heterosexuals to see how they could contribute to families and communities.
"It's not about what they think about us, it's about what we think about us," Hill said. "There is almost no reason in the world for anyone to be closeted any more."
I had the opportunity a few months back at a panel discussion to ask Ray Hill when there would be an effort launched to try to undo City Charter Amendment 2 from 2001, which denies health care and other employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of city employees and which passed by a narrow 51.5 to 48.5 margin (PDF) at the time. He said the votes were there now to do it, and I have to agree. We're likely still a decade or so away from attitudes being sufficiently different in Texas as a whole, but we'll get there. Time is on our side.
The best bit in this story about Gene Locke's campaign kickoff rally at Minute Maid Park yesterday is at the end, and doesn't really have anything to do with Locke's party.
Locke's multi-ethnic audience and endorsers were a refutation of an ethnic appeal made this week by campaign opponent Roy Morales, the county education board trustee who has lost two council races.Pointing out that the Houston mayor's race is non-partisan, Morales, a Hispanic Republican, said on Apostle Claver T. Kamau-Imani's radio show,
I don't have an R next to my name, I don't have a D next to name. I have an H next to my name.
To which [Gracie] Saenz, [Victor] Trevino and others might say, "So what?"
Actually, I think the best response comes from Festus in the comments:
I assume the 'H' next to Roy Morales' name stands for "Hopeless."
I don't think I can add anything to that. But Greg did, so go check his post out.
Earlier in this session, I thought the odds of a statewide smoking ban getting passed were pretty good. As of this point, however, it appears to be a dicier proposition.
The chairman of the House committee considering a proposed statewide workplace smoking ban said [Wednesday] that it's unclear whether the measure has a future this session."It's at a stalemate right now," state Rep. Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, chairman of the House Committee on State Affairs, said in an interview. "It's an important issue to a lot of people, and a lot of people think it goes too far."
The measure would ban smoking in indoor workplaces, including bars and restaurants. Supporters -- which include the American Cancer Society, Texas Medical Association and the Lance Armstrong Foundation -- say that it's a key way to cut down on harmful secondhand smoke. Critics say it's an affront to the rights of property owners and businesses.
The Senate version of the proposal -- by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston -- was considered in a public hearing yesterday before the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, which did not immediately vote on the measure.
On the House side, Solomons said he's promised the bill's author, Rep. Myra Crownover, R-Denton, that the measure will get a hearing. But he said he's not sure whether it will make it out of committee.
Crownover's bill is HB5, Ellis' is SB544. Both are pending in committee. Crownover has a diverse array of coauthors on her bill - anything that can attract the support of Leo Berman and Lon Burnam, Warren Chisum and Jessica Farrar can safely be said to have broad bipartisan support. That still may not be enough, of course.
Which isn't to say there's been no progress on the anti-smoking front. The Senate this week passed a bill that would raise the legal age for buying smokes from 18 to 19. I basically feel the same way about this as I do about the drinking age - if we define adulthood as beginning on your 18th birthday, then that should be universal - but on the other hand, the potential health benefit that could be gained by this, which would include some nontrivial cost savings for the state, is quite large. Doesn't change the philosophical objection, but it is a different matter from a pragmatic perspective.
The only thing more revolting than the just-declassified torture memos is the realization that one of their authors is now a federal judge with lifetime tenure. I have to believe that if we knew then what we know now, this despicable excuse for a human being would not be polluting the bench. But since now we do know, I say impeach Jay Bybee.
I don't know about you, but I'm ready for some May flowers...
This year's Easter art brouhaha. It's always something.
Three interesting explanations for #Amazonfail. And the official explanation, for what it's worth. Finally, an interesting postscript from someone who regrets the outrage that he had helped fan.
And in other Twitter kerfuffle news, there was Queryfail.
MythBusters: Crashing two moving cars, or one. Answer: Two is better than one. It involves a lot of math, but I'm sure you can handle it. Via Chad.
Eddie Gaedel lives on. Via BP.
You need three outs to retire the side in baseball. Except for those rare times when you need a fourth out.
More bad album covers, most of which I'd not seen before. And just to balance that out, the 12 most stylish album covers. Bad covers link via Banjo, stylish ones via HoustonPress on Twitter.
RickRolling - not as profitable as you might think.
Looks like the Virginia GOP still hasn't quite figured out how best to use the intertoobs.
"If you are planning simultaneous tea bagging all around the country, you're going to need a Dick Armey." It's all so cunfusing. So go read Roy about what it's all about. And then join me in apologizing for all of the snickering about it.
Pre-emptive Galting. Or maybe "premature Galting". I'm not sure.
Eight police officers serving with Scotland's largest force listed their official religion as Jedi in voluntary diversity forms. I'd have to think that would indeed increase diversity.
Rick Perry is not Texas. That shouldn't need to be said, but that's how it is these days.
Reality TV is the new last refuge of the scoundrel.
I just want it to be known that I solved the puzzle in today's Foxtrot in about five minutes. I had to dust off some pretty long-dormant brain cells to do the integral, but I got it. The first comment at the link above has the answer, if you're still scratching your head.
Efforts to clean up Harris County government appear to be on indefinite hold as any serious debate about ethics reform has been derailed for months by infighting and political gamesmanship.Commissioners Court has yet to act on a slate of suggestions prepared by an ethics reform task force that County Judge Ed Emmett appointed as scandals involving his colleagues clouded his Republican primary campaign.
The most significant reforms would require legislative approval, but only one bill has been filed as the biennial session's end quickly approaches.
That legislation, which aims to block county officials from profiting from their connections after they enter the private sector, was drafted at the behest of Commissioner Sylvia Garcia and does not have the backing of the full court.
When asked why the reform package has gone nowhere, locally or in Austin, court members are quick to assign blame to someone else.
Commissioners Steve Radack and Jerry Eversole said it is up to Emmett to bring the package up for a vote since he is the one who appointed the task force. He does not need court's permission to push his own bills in Austin as long as he does not claim he is speaking for the entire court, Radack added.
"If Emmett doesn't have the courage to place the proposals on the agenda, he shouldn't blame me because I would vote for anything constructive and beneficial to Harris County," Eversole said in a statement.
You may recall that back in September, Commissioner Eversole said he'd back whatever ethics reform bill came before the court because he expected to be busted by the FBI before the new laws would affect him. That's the last time we've heard anything about ethics reform. As it happens, a couple of days after that Hurricane Ike paid us a visit, and the focus of the County Judge race shifted away from ethics, for obvious reasons. But it never went away, and with the legislative session creeping to a close, it's getting to be now or never.
Ethics reform became a major theme of Emmett's campaign last year after Eversole came under fire for questionable campaign spending and former District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal resigned following the release of e-mails that included racist jokes, sexually explicit images, campaign materials and affectionate messages to his executive assistant.Emmett promised on the campaign trail to push for legislation authorizing Harris County to establish a board to investigate ethics complaints, to require lobbyists to register and to close the revolving door. He acknowledged, however, he has done little lobbying on the measure since Commissioner El Franco Lee twice referred the package to the County Attorney's Office for comparisons between current law and the recommendations.
County Attorney Vince Ryan submitted his final report in February. The court took no action, and the package has not reappeared on the agenda.
[...]
Failing to adopt the reforms he touted could provide ammunition to a Republican primary challenger in 2010, when Emmett faces running again for his first full four-year term.
Or, you know, for a Democratic challenger in November. Ethics reform was a big part of David Mincberg's campaign last year. Emmett eventually co-opted some of Mincberg's ideas when he formed that task force last May, but since then there's been nada.
Garcia said she agrees with every element of Emmett's package and would like to add campaign contribution limits and strengthen other financial reporting requirements.She said she was the under the impression the court supported her revolving-door bill when she took it to [State Sen. Mario] Gallegos, a Houston Democrat.
She said she did not find out that Radack opposed the bill until Thursday night, minutes before she was supposed to testify about the measure before a Senate committee.
Radack said he would support the bill if it was amended to block city officials from remaining in office while running for a county post. Garcia remained Houston's city controller while she ran for her current seat in 2002.
And there was Adrian Garcia, now Harris County Sheriff, last year. Council Member Sue Lovell is known to be looking at a run for County Clerk next year. You don't suppose there might be a partisan motive in Radack's objection, do you? Nah, surely not.
Hermann Park Conservancy on Saturday will formally unveil $14 million in park improvements, including a new miniature train station, dramatically landscaped grounds and a lakeside plaza featuring a restaurant, gift shop and restrooms.Among other project highlights for the 6-acre tract adjoining the northeastern edge of McGovern Lake, said conservancy executive director Doreen Stoller, were the planting of 300 trees and improvement of a waterway that will drain to Brays Bayou.
Stoller likened the transformation of the area, which abuts parking for the Houston Zoo, to that at downtown's Discovery Green.
"This is even prettier than I imagined," she said.
The station will serve as the focal point of the expanded miniature railroad, whose route was lengthened to nearly two miles and now includes stops at the Houston Museum of Natural Science, the Texas Medical Center and a transfer point to Metro's light rail system.
We go to the zoo a lot, so we've been watching this progress. I can't wait to take the girls on the new train - they'll love it. I just hope yesterday's inclement weather didn't put a damper on the festivities.
This is generally good news, but maybe not quite as good as it sounds.
Texas' proposed Voter ID law would be subject to approval by the U.S. Department of Justice or federal court for it to become law, federal officials confirm.In a letter to the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Christopher Coates, chief of the Justice Departments' voting section, advised that "before a change such as one requiring photo identification as part of the voting process can be legally enforced in Texas elections, state officials will be required to comply" with a federal law requiring review.
[...]
Last month, state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and the ACLU asked the federal Attorney General whether the proposed changes in Texas law to require a photo ID at the polls would be subject to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
A provision of that law requires jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get permission from the federal government before changing election laws.
Because of that, Texas would have the option of submitting Voter ID for approval by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder or requesting a federal judge in the District of Columbia to rule "that the proposed change has neither the purpose nor will have the effect of discriminating on the basis of race, color or membership in a protected ...group," explained Coates.
"This strengthens our opposition to this politically motivated and unnecessary piece of legislation," Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas, said in a statement. "We feel the provisions would violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and place an undue burden on minority voters."
If the review goes to the Justice Department, then I feel confident that nothing onerous will get through. If the court in question is the DC Circuit Appeals Court, with its heavy Republican tilt, I feel a lot less confident. Who gets to decide who does the review? It's good that there will be some kind of backstop on this if all else fails, but I'm not ready to celebrate just yet.
Barbara Radnofsky has been talking about a run for Attorney General in Texas in 2010 for some time now; I had a conversation about it with her back in 2007. Today she officially announced her intent, making her the third Democrat to do so for a statewide office. She told me on the phone that didn't intend to do anything fancy at this point, and would be concentrating on fundraising for the next few months. She had previously filed her paperwork to run, so she can raise funds for her campaign.
As Vince notes, others have been in the mix for AG on the Democratic side: David Van Os, who ran for AG in 2006; Larry Veselka, who is currently on the list of candidates for the US Attorney position in Houston; State Sen. Kirk Watson, who has also been mentioned as a possible candidate for Lt. Gov.; and State Rep. Patrick Rose. Of those, I think the most likely to run is Van Os. While I would not mind seeing contested primaries up and down the ballot - we're going to have a ton of them here in Harris for county judicial races - if Van Os were to ask me I'd suggest he take a crack at the 3rd Court of Appeals, which could use a little more partisan balance. But that's just my opinion.
As far as her prospects, or that of any Dem statewide, I will say this. What we've seen in the last couple of elections has basically been two categories of statewide race: Well-funded R versus underfunded (or unfunded) D, and unfunded R versus unfunded D. We haven't seen well-funded R versus well-funded D since 2002, and I think we can all agree that the electoral landscape is considerably different today than it was then. In any event, in the races where both candidates are not well-funded, which I think represents the baseline vote for each party, the Dems have done better. If current AG Greg Abbott, who has a huge pile of money, runs for something else as he's rumored to want to do, Radnofsky would be in a position to start out roughly at financial parity with her opponent, most likely Solicitor General Ted Cruz. Given that she almost surely has higher name recognition to begin with, if she can build on the $1.5 million she raised in 2006 - say, double or triple that - this could be a pretty tight race. I'll be very interested to see what kind of numbers she posts for the January disclosures.
I can accept that the Wilshire Village Apartments are going to be torn down. If they weren't going to be maintained by their owner, these things do happen. What I think is an unforgivable sin is for all of the perfectly good historically-authentic materials in those apartments - hardwood floors, period fixtures, and so forth - to be destroyed and tossed into a landfill. Surely something can be done about that, right?
State Rep. Chris Turner, on Twitter:
At 3:56 am, the House unanimously passed the budget.
Believe it or not, that was earlier than was originally anticipated. The pregame chatter was that the House would have to reconvene today to finish the job, given the vast number of amendments that needed to be slogged through. It helped that the debate was largely civil, with many contentious amendments, the kind that get inserted to force record votes for future campaign fodder, got withdrawn.
"The real story tonight is that we all worked together, arm in arm, to pass a budget that we can all be proud of. We have shown that working together, we can do what is right for Texas and for Texans," said Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie.The mostly sedate debate - there was a random "bring it on!" when one lawmaker questioned another's amendment - ran the gamut of sometimes hot-button subjects while intentionally steering clear of a couple of sensitive issues.
House members voted to ban public funding for private school vouchers, bar the Texas Department of Transportation from hiring lobbyists, pay for rail relocation to pave the way for a high-speed passenger train from San Antonio to Dallas under an amendment by Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio, and change teacher incentive funding to give local school districts more control under an amendment by Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio.
The Republican governor would see losses on two fronts under the proposal approved at 4 a.m.
The measure would drain most of the operating funds for Perry's office, instead using it to pay for community mental health crisis services and veterans' services under amendments by Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, and John Davis, R-Houston.
In addition, if Gov. Rick Perry carries through on his vow to block some $555 million in stimulus funds for unemployment benefits, he would lose the $136 million in the Enterprise Fund.
That budget amendment by Reps. Armando Walle, D-Houston, and Yvonne Davis, D-Dallas, would transfer the money to the unemployment trust fund that pays benefits to workers.
"He (Perry) is having a bad day," said Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco. "He might have to secede."
But an effort to slash funding for Planned Parenthood was dropped, and lawmakers also decided to forgo consideration of a ban on embryonic stem cell research.
I'll expand on some of these points in a minute, but first let me say that this, finally, was the kind of thing I had envisioned when Joe Straus was gaining momentum to knock off Tom Craddick as Speaker. The budget debate was substantive, it focused on real issues and not ideological talking points, and in the end it was passed unanimously. Does anyone think that would have happened if Craddick were still running the show? I sure don't. Straus hasn't been the end of the rainbow by any means, but he gets a ton of credit for this.
Now then. As fun as it is to contemplate a penniless Governor's office - perhaps its functions can be privatized; I hear Accenture is looking for a new gig - that was just a bit of a shell game that will ultimately be rectified. Of much greater importance, and much more likely to have a real effect, was the amendment to zero out the Enterprise Fund.
Rep. Trey Martinez-Fischer proposed an amendment that would keep Texas companies from receiving money from the Enterprise Fund and the Emerging Technology Fund if they'd already been bailed out by the feds. (Withdrawn.) Rep. Marisa Marquez tried to keep Perry's funds from bailing out corporations that laid people off while paying bonuses to executives. (Also withdrawn) And Rep. Joe Moody wanted to prohibit cash flow from Perry's funds to companies that contributed to his, Dewhurst's or Straus' campaigns. Debbie Riddle killed that bit of fun with a point of order. (She's good at that.)Then, Rep. Armando Walle wanted to nix the $136 million appropriation for the Enterprise Fund in the 2010-11 biennium if none of the unemployment insurance bills pass. The idea here is that if the unemployment insurance bills don't pass, then Texas won't get the $555 million for the unemployment trust fund, which Perry rejected last month. And the Enterprise Fund siphons money from the trust fund. So what Walle wanted to do with his amendment is say to Perry, "Veto the unemployment insurance bills, and we'll zero out your slush fund." But that amendment didn't fly, either. Died on a point of order.
So far, Mark Strama has been the only one of the bunch to have any success. His amendment, which passed, says that the Emerging Tech Fund should prioritize funding for energy-related R & D projects.
But stay tuned. Yvonne Davis' amendment, which would completely eliminate funding for Perry's Enterprise Fund, was temporarily withdrawn, but seems like it might have some success.
And in the end, Rep. Davis' amendment was accepted. I'm not exactly sure how it differed from Rep. Walle's amendment, but the bottom line is that as things stand now, if Perry vetoes SB1569, whose prospects for passing the House look better to me now, then he nixes his own slush fund. You gotta love that.
Other matters of interest: School vouchers go down again. Teacher incentive pay gets an overhaul. Various petty amendments bite the dust amid general good will and the liberal use of points of order.
The floor fights have been few and far between. We hear that House members on the left and right have struck a truce and agreed to pull down their most controversial budget amendments.That includes Panhandle Republican Warren Chisum's proposal to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Chisum's amendment had family family planning providers worried. But the amendment never came up.
Leo Berman, the Tyler Republican, did bring forth two amendments aimed at illegal immigrants. One would have instructed state health officials not to issue birth certificates to children of illegal immigrants (who, under current law, are U.S. citizens). Berman also tried to tax money transfers sent from Texas back to Mexico, and Central and South America. Both of Berman's amendments were shot down on points of order because they changed state law, which isn't allowed during the budget debated.
All in all, it was a pretty good day. There were some more goodies and the requisite amount of silliness, as one would expect for an 18-hour marathon. I recommend you read Vince's exhaustive liveblogging to get a feel for that. In the meantime, the budget now goes to the conference committee so that the differences between the House and Senate versions can be ironed out. Burka things the Senate has the advantage in that, so who knows how much of what the House did will ultimately survive. All I know is that having seen the budget process under Tom Craddick three times, this was a vast improvement.
UPDATE: From Texas Impact:
Among the most important improvements the House made on the floor were:
- Authorizing the Health and Human Services Commission to use ARRA funds to provide full-year Medicaid enrollment for children contingent upon the passage of necessary legislation
- Establishment of performance measures for agencies receiving ARRA funds to guide their expenditure of those funds
- Authorizing new ARRA-funded programs for energy efficiency/renewable energy loans and green jobs contingent upon the passage of necessary legislation
They call the House budget "a significant improvement over the Senate budget". Let's hope we can say the same after the conference committee. Link via EoW.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to Mayor Bill White's request to overhaul its methods for estimating emissions from large refineries and chemical plants, a move that could reveal higher pollution levels.In response to White, the federal agency acknowledged flaws in its formulas for calculating pollution levels, leading to unreliable data for decision-making.
The new estimates would for the first time include emissions of toxic gases and other pollutants during startups, shutdowns and equipment malfunctions, according to the EPA's letter to the mayor.
The agency didn't give White everything he wanted. Among requests it declined were a requirement that certain industrial sites verify the accuracy of their emissions with emerging laser technology and with fence-line monitors.
Still, environmentalists, public health advocates and some air-quality officials hailed the agency's response, predicting that the promised revisions will reveal more emissions from refineries and chemical plants than previously reported.
"It will show the truth," said Elena Marks, director of health and environmental policy for White
I don't know how much effect this will have in practice. I think the industry flack who said that the city already has a wide array of accurate sensors has a point. Still, it's nice to have the feds acknowledge the need for more accurate measurements - if nothing else, it'll make it harder to make claims based on faulty data. And with the EPA taking more far-reaching action on greenhouse gases and climate change, I'd say it's been a good week for the environment.
Wow.
The chairman of the House committee that oversees gambling said Friday he has strong support for legislation that would open the door for 17 casinos, slot machines at racetracks, and Indian gaming in Texas.Rep. Edmund Kuempel, R-Seguin, said the omnibus gaming bill, which would let voters decide whether to allow gambling in Texas, probably won't be firmed up in his committee until next week. But he said the measure lawmakers are negotiating merges the interests of oft-competing resort casino developers and racetrack operators - as well as Indian reservations that had their casinos shuttered in 2002.
Maybe the Tiguas will get what they wanted after all.
Kuempel stressed that the details of the bill could change in the next week. But he said right now, lawmakers on the Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee have a framework that would allow up to 17 resort casinos: 3 on Indian reservations; 2 on the South Texas barrier islands; 1 in the Port Arthur area; 3 at Class 1 racetracks; 2 at Class 2 racetracks; and 6 others spread out across the rest of the state.The measure would also allow slot machines at racetracks and other forms of gaming on Indian reservations.
That's a hell of a lot of casinos, that's all I know. Take a look again at the economic projections made by the racetracks and see if you think there's room here for that large an expansion of gambling. I can't wait to see what numbers get thrown around next week.
In the meantime, it would seem that the competing interests may have found a way to put aside their differences and get something on the table, as it were.
Outside a Capitol hearing on casinos and other gambling not allowed in Texas, an advocate for legalizing slot machines at horse and dog tracks called a pro-casino lobbyist a "pathological liar."Separately, the critiqued lobbyist said anyone suggesting that he scrawled on a handout and misrepresented Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's position on casinos was lying.
The testy moments last week served as reminders that the fight over bolstering legal gambling in Texas beyond betting on dogs and horses remains a legislative spectacle, entwining lawmakers, lobbyists, developers, Indian tribes, casino interests, tracks, and horse and dog owners, some of whom might feel like perennial players in a gamblers' version of the movie "Groundhog Day."
The renewed bickering this session could again bog down efforts to expand gambling.
[...]
Rep. Edmund Kuempel, chairman of the House Committee on Licensing & Administrative Procedures, has said a gambling measure should be achievable this year.
Kuempel, who presided over hours of public testimony last week, huddled privately Monday with House sponsors of various proposals in hopes of reaching a common-ground package. "We've got to explore every possibility," he said.
[...]
At the start of the session, Kuempel provided space in his office for casino and track interests to hammer out an agreement potentially bringing legislators together. Noting the state's financial straits, Kuempel exhorted: "If you can't get it together this time, all of you should be shot."
Hey, as Adam likes to say on Mythbusters, "Failure is always an option". And in this case, the entertainment value is nearly as high.
From the "Be careful what you vaguely allude to in a plausibly deniable way in front of a frothing crowd that knows exactly what you're talking about and is loving every word of it" department:
Rasmussen: "75% [of Texans] Opt to Stay." But isn't the lede here that nearly one in five Texans--18 percent--do want to secede?Careful now, people. Consider the sort of nation Texas would become: bellicose, oil-rich, brutal--and with terrifying chemical and nuclear weapons stockpiles controlled by a dangerously irrational religious fanatic. By the political logic of Texas conservatives, that's a pretty good formula for U.S. military action. ("Welcome to Austin, Mr. Bremer....") Plus, Gates would certainly want it back--and he knows the geography well enough.
Apparently, Jay Leno made the same observation last night; others have since piled on as well. Isn't it nice to be made a laughingstock? Thanks for reminding everyone that George Bush wasn't an aberration as Governor, Rick. Evan Smith will be sending you a bouquet of roses to express his appreciation for making this year's Bum Steer Awards edition write itself. Having Tom DeLay come to your defense while making John Cornyn sound statesmanlike, that's just icing on the crazy cake.
All I can add to this is that the political logic noted above is not exactly unique to Texas conservatives. And that I'd bet the same poll in most other states would get a similar result. It's not like we were the only ones infested with teabagger rallies this week, after all. The Crazification Factor suggests this; hell, if anything, that 18% number is on the low side. Hold still, you've got something in your eye...
UPDATE: Via Elise Hu, Rep. Jim Dunnam is trying to gin up support for HR1383, which states in part:
RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the State of Texas reaffirms the pride of all Texans in both our one and indivisible National Union and in our one and indivisible State and the common heritage of both; and, be it furtherRESOLVED, That the House of Representatives expresses its complete and total disagreement with any element advocating the "secession" of Texas or any other state from our one and indivisible Union
So let's see who's for what. Seems an easy enough call to me, but clearly I'm not the patriot Rick Perry is.
Sadly, I am no longer young enough to be considered a "Young Democrat". But I'm still young enough to tell you about the Texas Young Democrats convention going on this weekend in Austin. Here's actual YD George Nasser with the details.
The Democratic youth vote in Texas went up over 300% in 2008. Want to know what this surging demographic is up to next? Catch the movers and shakers of the Texas youth movement at the Texas Young Democrats Convention in Austin this weekend.The convention will kick off Friday night with a fundraiser for the TYD at the Thistle Cafe from 7 to 10pm. Speakers will include state senator Leticia Van De Putte and Texas Democratic Party chairman Boyd Richie. The convention itself will run from the morning of Saturday, April 18 to noon on Sunday the 19th, at St. Edwards University's Ragsdale Center. Guest speakers for the convention will include Bill White and John Sharp, as well numerous representatives from various issue groups and the Texas Democratic Party.
Also be sure to join the Texas College Democrats following the convention for lobby training at UT at 6pm in preparation for Monday's TCD Lobby Day.
For more information, hit up the convention web site at http://www.campaignwindow.com/tydconvention or email the Texas Young Democrats at texasyds@gmail.com.
So there you have it. Now get off my lawn and get yourself over to the convention already.
I just passed 5000 songs in my iTunes collection, though that number includes a few duplicates, a couple of misplaced podcasts, and some CD tracks, from live performances and from things like the Beatles anthology, that are spoken intros or interview bits or whatnot. Still, a nice milestone to reach. I've got a ton of new music taken from recent CD acquisitions (and in a couple of cases, already-owned CDs that I'd just not gotten around to ripping before), a few iTunes purchases, and a bunch of free downloads, mostly but not entirely from Amazon. This list is taken from a sample of the more recent stuff.
1. Smells Like Teen Spirit - Tori Amos
2. Margaret in Captivity - The Decemberists
3. Somebody's Been Fooling #1 - Big Joe Williams
4. Turning Japanese - The Vapors
5. People Got A Lot Of Nerve - Neko Case
6. Ruben James - The Kingston Trio
7. Toast The Earth With ExxonMobil - Austin Lounge Lizards
8. It's Tricky - Run DMC
9. Sooner - My Morning Jacket
10. Emancipted Minor - Ani DiFranco
And I've still got a lot of stuff that has been added to the collection but has not yet had a turn on the iPod Mini. Seems like the MP3 music takes up more space than stuff ripped from CD - in the past, when all I had in the collection was CDs, I could fit over 400 songs on there. Now, it tops out around 300. At least it makes me change things out regularly. What are you listening to this week?
Other than voter ID, we really haven't had a big fight in the Lege this session. Burka thinks Sen. Steve Ogden's scurrilous stem cell rider could be the next big brawl.
The Ogden rider is not in the House bill, but it is likely that the conservatives will offer the identical language as a floor amendment to the House committee substitute. [House Appropriations Chair Jim] Pitts will oppose it. If the amendment passes, it will be in both bills and will become part of the conference committee report. I believe that if it comes to a vote, it will fail.
It's all about 2010 GOP primary politics, of course. Never mind what would be good for Texas. There will be a rally in support of removing this rider from the budget this morning at the Capitol by Texans for Advancement of Medical Research. Click on to read their press release.
That won't be the only thing to fight about, of course - Burka has three other posts highlighting various amendments to the budget, many of which seek to divert or restrict money in the Texas Enterprise Fund, a/k/a the Governor's slush fund. That has the potential for more entertainment value, mostly for the gratuitous Perry-bashing that it will allow. No shortage of things to keep an eye on, that's for sure.
Oh, and the House yesterday approved $3.3 billion in supplemental spending, which included $700 million for hurricane relief. It passed by a margin of 141 to five on second reading. As far as I know, no teabags were harmed in the passage of that bill.
UPDATE: Here for your perusal is the Legislative Study Group analysis of the budget, also known as CSSB1. It gives a detailed overview of all appropriations in each article of the budget, including a breakdown of federal stimulus funds, plus a description and rating of each amendment, of which there are well over 100. Only a handful of amendments are rated as "Unfavorable", with most of them being aimed at the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney's office (it's long been a GOP desire to move prosecution of political crimes out of Travis County) or at undocumented immigrants; the former amendments come from Rep. Wayne Christian, the latter from (who else?) Rep. Leo Berman. Check it out.
Texans for Advancement of Medical ResearchLegislators, Patients and Advocates Oppose Efforts to Cripple Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Texas
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 16, 2009
Contact: Joe Brown, President TAMR, 713-218-8888
The future of cutting-edge medical research into embryonic stem cells is on the line in Texas as the House takes up debate on a state budget Friday. The House is expected to vote on the budget either Friday or over the weekend. The Senate's version of the budget includes a provision that bars public funding for embryonic stem cell research, a measure that could limit even privately funded research at publicly funded facilities. It would chase away top scientists, strand Texas far behind other state's that are supporting this promising medical research, and undermine the hope so many families have that this research could lead to treatments for serious medical conditions like Parkinson's disease, diabetes and cancer.House members, an economist, patients and patient advocates will speak at a press conference at 8:45 a.m. on Friday (April 17) about the importance of keeping this irresponsible provision out of the state budget.
WHAT: Press conference on efforts to block funding limits for embryonic stem cell research in the state budget
WHEN: 8:45 a.m., Friday, April 17
WHERE: West Steps of the Capitol (In case of rain the event will be just inside West entrance to the capitol, directly below the House Chamber.)
WHO:
Professor Bernard Weinstein, Director of the Center for Economic Development and Research and a professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas in Denton
Dr. Kaylen Silverberg, Partner and Medical Director of the Texas Fertility Center and Austin IVF
Representative Ellen Cohen, Houston
Representative Rick Hardcastle, Vernon
Margaret Sampson, Attorney at Vinson & Elkins, LLP and PhD in Molecular and Human Genetics
Advocate and Patient Emma and Sara Garrett
Rick Casey provides an update on the City Council redistricting lawsuit.
The burning question of whether the city of Houston must immediately expand its 14-member City Council by adding two new districts in time for November's election, or whether it can wait two years for detailed census information, is now before U.S. District Judge Sim Lake.The legal question sounds simple: What constitutes a change?
But this involves lawyers, so nothing is simple.
One side says adding the two seats would be a change.
The other says not to do so would be a change.
Both are arguably right.
[...]
[Vidal] Martinez and [Carroll] Robinson are suing under a section of the Voting Rights Act that requires that all changes in the voting system be approved either by the Justice Department or by a federal court. They argue that the city's decision not to follow the 1979 agreement by adding two seats is a change and therefore needed federal approval.
To the contrary, argues the city's lawyer, Austin voting rights specialist Robert Heath. Adding two seats would be a change that required Justice Department approval. Since the city has not changed, the suit is not valid.
Martinez says he expects Lake to rule within a couple of weeks. If the judge agrees with Martinez and Robinson, the matter goes to a panel of three federal judges for further argument. If the city loses there, it can appeal straight to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Sims rules for the city, there is no appeal.
No problem, says Martinez. "We'll go to state court and ask a judge to require the city to obey its own charter and add the districts," he said.
No clue about the timeline, unfortunately. If the city wins and the two plaintiffs refile in state court, I have my doubts that they could get a ruling in time to affect things, at least for this election. Legal actions always take longer than I think they will. Thanks to Greg for the tip.
In 2007, Texans voted to give their scientists as much as $3 billion over 10 years to conduct groundbreaking cancer research. The money is supposed to start flowing to researchers this fall.But scientists say the cancer research initiative may face a major roadblock: Not one penny can be distributed unless researchers can also come up with large sums from a different source.
For every dollar granted by the state, the Texas Constitution requires researchers to come up with 50 cents on their own - as much as $1.5 billion over the next decade. With the economy in recession and federal funding tight, researchers say it could be hard to find those matching funds.
"In this economy ... where is this $1.5 billion going to come from?" said Dr. Daniel Foster, professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and past president of The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas.
Scientists also say the state may be trying to award money too quickly in its first year, operating on a schedule that could result in hastily written research proposals that don't meet the highest scientific standards.
[...]
The state is now getting down to the nuts-and-bolts of distributing the funds. The Legislature is still debating how much money will be granted.
The Senate has asked to fund the maximum amount allowed - $300 million per year for the next two years. The House is requesting only half that. The cancer institute's executive director, Bill Gimson, came on the job last month and said his first priority is to hire a chief scientific officer to get grant applications moving through the review process. He said he hopes to solicit applications in August.
But the big unanswered question is where to come up with money to supplement the state awards. The provision for 50 percent matching funds was inserted late in the 2007 legislative process to get the bill through the House.
Read the whole thing, it's worth your time. I honestly don't remember that provision from 2007 - there may be something about it in my archives somewhere, but if so, I'd forgotten about it. The lesson, as usual, is that things are never as simple as they sound in the Lege. Thanks to Vince for the link.
They sure do seem to like flushing their money away in Farmers Branch.
The Farmers Branch City Council will spend nearly a half-million dollars more to cover the cost of legal fees incurred by two groups that have challenged the city's ordinances on illegal immigration.Since 2006 to Tuesday's council decision, the city has spent about $2 million on legal fees related to illegal immigration.
Mayor Tim O'Hare and attorney Pete Smith declined to comment on the mediated settlement of $250,000 with the Villas at Parkside Partners and $220,000 with Alfredo Vasquez and the American Civil Liberties Union.
"We are grateful to have settled the matter of attorneys' fees in our first case against the city of Farmers Branch. Now we can concentrate on current litigation," said Lisa Graybill, legal director of the ACLU of Texas.
Note that these fees are from the lawsuit that resulted from the original Farmers Branch ordinance, Ordinance 2903, which was permanently struck down in May and for which the final settlement was reached in August. There is a separate lawsuit for the successor to this ordinance, Ordinance 2952, for which a temporary injunction was issued in September. When Farmers Branch loses that suit, and the judge in question, the same one for 2903, has said he'd be inclined to strike this one down as well, they'll be on the hook for more fees. And there's yet another suit stemming from open records requests for the invoices associated with all these bills. At this rate, they may top $5 million spent on this utter folly.
What's funny about this is that the same type of people who bitch and moan about every penny the city of Houston wants to spend on this program or that seem to be just fine with Farmers Branch spending its money in this fashion. I guess it's all a matter of what your priorities are.
The Texas Senate tentatively approved Sen. Kevin Eltife's bill to change the state's unemployment laws so that Texas can accept an estimated $555 million in federal stimulus dollars.[...]
Eltife's bill was supported by 22 senators and opposed by nine. It faces a final vote before going to the House for consideration.
SB 1569 would make several changes to Texas law to drawn down the funds, including adopting unemployment insurance benefits for part-time employees and for workers forced to quit their jobs for compelling family reasons.
The record vote isn't available yet, so I don't know who the nine are. Sens. Deuell and Carona are listed as coauthors, so presumably they voted in favor. I guess Sen. Eltife had the numbers he needed. Kudos to him for getting this done.
Now of course, Governor Perry will surely veto this. The question is whether the House can pass it with enough votes to override, and if it can be passed in time to try to override it. Perry can sit on it for three weeks before issuing a yay or nay, so unless the House acts quickly, it'll be a moot point. No clue when they might get to it.
A statement from the Texas AFL-CIO in praise of this vote is beneath the fold.
UPDATE: Here's an AP story that identifies Sen. Tommy Williams as one of the No votes.
Today's Texas Senate vote to accept $555 million in federal economic stimulus funds for unemployed Texans marks an important statement that the Legislature needs to place the needs of Texans above political and ideological considerations, Texas AFL-CIO President Becky Moeller said.On a 22-9 vote, the Senate tentatively approved SB 1569 by Sen. Kevin Eltife, R-Tyler. The bill would make an estimated 45,000 jobless Texans, most of whom are low-wage or part-time workers, newly eligible for Unemployment Insurance benefits. Eltife's bill also creates an interim study to explore Unemployment Insurance eligibility. A final vote will be required in the Senate.
"The Texas Senate chose today to engage the big problems in Texas rather than secede from them," Moeller said. "Taking a bipartisan approach, the Senate majority declared what ordinary Texans know: working families are hurting in this economy and the stimulus package offers help for them."
Eltife noted during floor debate that the stimulus funds would pay the cost of the eligibility improvements for the first nine years and save Texas employers $80 million in interest costs because of the reduced need to borrow to replenish the Unemployment Insurance fund in bad times.
Moeller praised Eltife and other senators in the majority, singling out Eltife's "extraordinary work" in advancing the legislation to this point. She said Sens. Eddie Lucio, Leticia Van de Putte, Rodney Ellis and Judith Zaffirini also played critical roles.
"Amid silly talk of 'state's rights' and 'secession' by opponents of federal funding to attack an economic nosedive, today's action by the Senate, taken with a minimum of debate, demonstrates that a bipartisan approach by legislators can address the real problems of Texas," Moeller said. "Today the Senate has done well and done right by all of Texas."
As the sun rises in the east, so do politicians who say stupid things revise and extend those remarks afterward when people start asking them questions about what they really meant. And so it was the case with Rick Perry, who insisted to reporters that he didn't actually mean it when he said that Texas might look to secede if we got fed up enough with Washington, whatever that means. It might have been nice if the reporters had pressed him a bit more about the crowd to whom he made his initial statements, who were chanting "Secede! Secede!" in agreement with what they sure as heck thought he was saying, but I suppose you can't have everything. Regardless, Democratic leaders such as Jim Dunnam and Rodney Ellis and gubernatorial candidate Tom Schieffer have rightly jumped on Perry for his idiocy, and I hope more will join in. (Anyone heard from Kinky Friedman on this?) It'd be nice if a few Republicans expressed some concern about making such intemperate statements, at least the ones who haven't been busy making their own. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.
Of the many things that bother me about this, I think it's the fact that once again a Texas Republican has made national news in a way that disgraces the state and makes us look like a bunch of rubes and fools. It's been a nonstop parade of idiocy this year - Sharon Keller, the SBOE clown show, Louie Gohmert, Betty Brown, and now Rick Perry. I realize that there's a lot of people who don't care what others think about us, indeed who consider it a badge of honor to be looked down upon by the rest of the country and the world, but nothing good can come out of this. We can be as business-friendly a state as we want to be, but if people don't want to relocate here because they've had such a negative impression of the place because of stunts like these it won't do us any good. Exceptionalism isn't necessarily an asset.
Most of all, I can't believe I have to say any of this. Secession, for Christ's sake. Because some people are unhappy that they lost an election. Remember how a bunch of celebrities whined to the press in 2000 and again in 2004 that they'd leave the country if Bush won? Remember how we all thought they were jackasses for saying that? Remember how Republicans in particular piled on them for their knavery? Boy, those sure were the days. McBlogger, PDiddie, Stace, and Rachel Farris have more.
In advance of yesterday's teabag-a-rama, Governor Rick Perry made a successful ploy for a little national attention.
WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACK RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY
Tue Apr 14 2009 08:44:54 ET
AUSTIN - Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states' rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state," Gov. Perry said. "That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states' rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union."
Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."
Except for all that stimulus money that Perry cordially accepted to "promote economic growth and create jobs" (PDF) that we're now mostly using to protect the Rainy Day Fund and to pay for our property tax cuts this biennium. We like that stuff. Oh, and we've only just noticed things like the expansion of the federal government and the deficit and stuff like that - we didn't pay any attention to it before.
Actually, let me just quote The Texas Blue here:
"Unfortunately, the protections it guarantees have melted away over the course of the years..."Governor Rick Perry, five days ago: Governor Perry Calls FEMA To Assist With Wildfires
Governor Rick Perry, last month: Governor Perry Calls For 1,000 Troops To Be Sent To Border
Governor Rick Perry, five months ago: Governor Perry Requests 18 Month Extension Of Federal Aid For Ike Debris Removal
It looks to me like the only thing that has melted away over the course of the years is any sense of decency or shame that Republicans like Governor Perry may have had at some point in their lives.
Makes you wonder who he'll call on for help when we secede. In any event, HCR50, which is one step up legislatively from things like birthday greetings, isn't actual legislation but a bunch of "Whereas"es followed by a couple of "Be it resolved"s - you know, like a petition - that usually gets filed and forgotten. You'd think there'd be more pressing business to attend to at this point of the session, but then you're not Rick Perry. All I can say is that if his goal was to distract the national media from Betty Brown, or (God help us all) to draw attention to himself as a potential Republican nominee for President in 2012, he succeeded.
Texas likes to bill itself as a business-friendly state. But there's one thing that a lot of businesses want that the Republican leadership has been unwilling to entertain, and that's to make Medicaid renewals an annual event instead of every six months.
Arlington hospital executive Joel Ballew, speaking for the Healthcare Legislative Task Force of the Dallas Regional Chamber, said Texas needs to boost state funding of the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program to draw down the maximum amount of federal matching funds possible. The Dallas chamber and its counterparts in the state's eight biggest urban areas said annual renewals for the 1.9 children on Medicaid would put more youngsters on the rolls, by reducing gaps in coverage caused by excessive red tape and the state eligibility system's problems."How would y'all like to sign up for your health insurance twice a year?" Bruce LaBoon of the Greater Houston Partnership said at a news conference. "I doubt if you'd like it very much. And the paperwork of course for Medicaid is significant. The [processing] delays are significant. ... In order to retain your eligibility in a children's Medicaid program in this state, you pretty much have to start signing up as soon as your coverage is approved for the last time. It's a continuous process of applying and applying and applying again."
Hold that thought about the processing delays for a minute, I'll get back to it.
In the past, some lawmakers have opposed what's known as "12 months' continuous eligibility" because they want families' income checked more often than once a year. That way, they argued, those over the income ceilings wouldn't get free care.However, speakers at the news conference said semiannual renewals have gummed up an overtaxed eligibility-determination system. They said Texas takes as long as three months to process Medicaid applications and renewals. Even Louisiana does a better job, they said. Early in the decade, Texas made some progress in simplifying enrollment but it has backslid with a botched privatization of signups for social services, said advocates and five House Democrats who spoke at the press conference.
Makes your heart swell with pride to know that Louisiana does a better job than we do, doesn't it? The "botched privatization effort" of course refers to the Accenture debacle, but the effect is aggravated by the TIERS implementation, whose expansion has been postponed once again because it couldn't keep up with the demands on it, and also by the fact that demand for social services has increased sharply due to the lousy economy. Lengthening the eligibility period would go a long way towards alleviating many of these problems.
Ballew, director of government affairs and advocacy for Texas Health Resources, the amalgam of Dallas' Presbyterian Healthcare Resources and Fort Worth's Harris Methodist Health System, said "if current trends continue, access to health care will decline and costs to business will increase."The Dallas chamber wants the Legislature "to implement policies to enroll every eligible child in Medicaid or CHIP," he said. That way, not only would Texas draw down all federal funds it's entitled to, he said, but parents could be more productive workers because their youngsters would have regular checkups and receive preventive care.
Doing this would require that the state spend more money, which is a big part of the Republican reluctance to embrace this. But the added cost would bring an even larger return.
The largest chambers of commerce in Texas are pushing for 12-month Medicaid coverage, which is standard in the private sector. The Greater Houston Partnership also has thrown its "strong support" for 12-month coverage in an effort to reduce the number of uninsured children in Texas. A $500 million match by the state would generate an extra $800 million in federal funds and reduce the number of uninsured children by one-third."It is absolutely good social policy. It is absolutely good business policy as well," said Bruce LaBoon, past chairman of the Greater Houston Partnership.
Texas gets back $1.47 from the federal government for every $1 it invests in the children's Medicaid program.
"It is absolutely essential that we allow parents and children to sign up once a year, like we all do," LaBoon said.
Yeah, we've had this same discussion with things like CHIP and more recently unemployment insurance. For whatever the reason, the "we get back a lot more than we spend" argument just doesn't move too many members of the Lege (assuming they know what Medicaid is, of course), not to mention Rick Perry and David Dewhurst. At this point in the session, with so much to do and so little time to do it, I can't say I have much hope for a different outcome this time around. Vaqueros and Wonkeros has more.
Grits sat in on the House Human Services Committee hearing that looked at how the state handled last year's child-welfare operation at the FLDS ranch, and he's got a detailed report on what transpired as well as an analysis of the proposed legislation to deal with it, which he refers to as "a Christmas Tree of mischief." Check it out, and check out Melissa de Bosque's writeup as well.
Christof notices a banner ad on chron.com for the Katy Freeway managed lanes, which are set to open on Monday, April 18, and gives us an update on them.
The lanes will now be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Outside of rush hours, they're a toll road: every car, regardless of how many people are in it, pays $1.10 to go the full length of the lanes. During rush hour, in the rush hour direction, single occupant cars pay between $2.00 and $4.00 and 2+ carpools are free. Those rates will need to be adjusted if the lanes are too popular, because HCTRA (who operates the lanes) has promised METRO (who gave up the HOV lane to make room for them) that buses will keep moving at full speed. Single occupant vehicles and carpools will be sorted out by a three-lane toll plaza: left lane for carpools, right two lanes for SOVs.
I guess they'll have some sort of video surveillance to ensure that single occupancy vehicles are not trying to sneak through the non-toll lane. I predict that some time in the next year or so, we'll see a story reported on how whatever system they have for monitoring this still has a few bugs in the system. The only question is whether they err on the side of caution or aggression.
Other potential problems:
Across the country, people have shown a distaste for tolls when a free option is available. Toll roads like Beltway 8 that don't duplicate a freeway do well. Toll roads like the Hardy that do tend not to fill up. And Houston's first managed lanes are in a corridor that just had a lot of free capacity added.We may also begin to see problem with the lanes themselves. Nearly all the on- and off-ramps are from the regular lanes. If those lanes get congested, getting to the uncongested managed lanes will be hard for both carpools and buses. Some more direct ramps like those at Addicks and NWTC would have helped.
I think even if the free lanes don't get too congested, having more vehicles cutting all the way across the highway to get on and off is going to increase the number of accidents. But maybe not so much if the free lanes stay relatively free-flowing. I wonder if anyone will do a study of this.
In other news, I recently realized that Bloglines has stopped noticing new updates from Intermodality's RSS feed, so over these past few weeks as I've been wondering if Christof has been off the grid, it turned out that the problem was on my end. So, while I ponder the logistics of switching to Google reader - this is not the first time Bloglines has done this to me, and there are a couple of other feeds that are currently lost as well, I just noticed their loss sooner because they update more frequently - here are a couple of posts that I might have commented on:
Houston rail transit in an alternate universe. Maybe we are better off not having approved earlier rail referenda.
Why the feds like pavement and not rails. Don't even get me started on this.
The transportation stimulus comes home. A look at where federal transportation stimulus money will be going around here. Some of it will even be spent on non-boondoggle toll roads.
The map - now with officially approved colors. An update to the Metro 2012 Solutions map, with station locations and other useful information.
Among other things, today is the deadline for federal candidates to report their campaign finance status. Of the many contenders for Kay Bailey Hutchison's Senate seat, whenever that becomes available, I think it's safe to say that Bill White had the best start to the year. From his press release:
Mayor Bill White reported contributions totaling more than $2.6 million in just over 100 days since launching his U.S. Senate campaign, according to a report filed with the Federal Elections Commission today.More than 1,400 Texans contributed through March 31st, the end of the filing period. The contributions for the filing period totaled more than $1.8 million.
Campaign Finance Chair Scott Atlas said, "The outpouring of support from donors and volunteers has been simply amazing. The energy around Mayor White's campaign shows Texans believe in his ability to bring people together and get things done. People want their next senator to be a voice for our state's future."
So far, none of the Senate incumbents or hopefuls have their reports up on the FEC disclosure page, so I can't give you the details yet. However, Gardner Selby has some information.
Democrat John Sharp topped five other candidates or prospective candidates for the U.S. Senate in cash on hand as of March 31, though his camp didn't say this afternoon how much of the $2.4 million he piled up since Jan. 1 came from loans. His loan chunk--perhaps tapping Sharp's personal wealth--may be left to show up when his report, filed with the Federal Election Commission, surfaces online.Another Democrat, Houston Mayor Bill White, had $2.1 million cash on hand at the end of this year's first quarter; he'd taken no loans.
Among Republicans, former Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams had $388,628 cash on hand; a haul fueled by $200,000 in loans he gave his exploratory committee. State Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, had $310,407. She was trailed in her bank balance by two members of the Texas Railroad Commission, Elizabeth Ames Jones with $164,663 and Michael Williams with $113,957.
As Selby notes, we can't fully judge Sharp's total till we know how much of it was loaned by himself to the campaign. It's possible he did better than any of the Republicans and yet still fell well short of White, and it's possible he outraised White, though to be honest if he'd really taken in $2 million or so, I'd have expected him to be shouting that from the rooftops. We'll know soon enough. In any case, as BOR notes, the two Dems are way out in from of the Rs - heck, all of them put together can't match either Dem. That may change if a David Dewhurst or a Greg Abbott jumps in, but for now, it's a nice position for the Dems to be in.
Other reports of interest, all Congressional:
- Pete Sessions, who has been in the crosshairs of the DCCC lately and whose district is trending strongly Democratic, had a good quarter with over $200K raised and almost $900K on hand. Sessions has always been an able fundraiser, no doubt why he's chairing the NRCC this go-round.
- Mike McCaul doesn't have a report yet. He already has a well-heeled challenger and a DCCC bulls-eye on his back, but he's also filthy rich and will not be outgunned financially.
- John Culberson had a decent quarter, with $100K raised, though only a modest $70K on hand. He didn't leave anything in reserve after his expensive re-election fight last year, and though I think he's likely to skate this time around, I'll bet he invests some time in restocking his coffers.
- Sheila Jackson Lee didn't raise much, and spent more than she raised, but she starts the year with over $400K on hand, which may give pause to anyone looking to primary her.
- The benefits of running for President, having a national following, and being stalked by Borat not having an opponent in the last cycle: Ron Paul has over two million dollars on hand, despite raising almost nothing and spending nearly $250K.
- Randy Neugebauer in CD19 doesn't have a report up yet, either, but according to the CREW crew, he wants to use his campaign funds to pay for the use of his yacht to fundraise for his campaign. Just click over and see for yourself. The yacht is anchored in DC, in case you were wondering (as I was) what the heck one would do with a yacht in Lubbock.
- Former Congressman Jim Turner, who was drawn out of his seat in the 2004 Tom DeLay re-redistricting, still has over a million bucks on hand. Which in theory he eventually needs to dispose of in some fashion, either on another campaign of his own or by giving it to other candidates.
That's all for now. I'll add to this as I see more reports.
I received the following statement from the office of Harris County Tax Assessor Leo Vasquez, which was sent to KHOU and Fox 26 in response to the charges made by State Reps. Garnet Coleman and Ana Hernandez about the voter ID testimony given by staffers George Hammerlein and Ed Johnson.
Statement of Leo Vasquez,Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector and Voter Registrar
April 13, 2009
I am extremely disappointed in the lack of professionalism exhibited by State Representatives Coleman and Hernandez and demand from them a written apology to the dedicated public servants on my staff who they have maliciously accused of perjury. They executed this attack without first providing this office holder the professional courtesy of a face-to-face meeting.
At the specific invitation of St. Rep. Todd Smith, a colleague of Reps. Coleman and Hernandez, my office staff responded to the Chairman's request to present data before the House Elections Committee. Our staff did so as a neutral resource witness only. I cannot imagine Reps. Coleman and Hernandez are advocating that the Harris County Tax Office should ignore the legislators of Texas. It is important to also note that our staff also took the opportunity while in Austin to work with other Democratic and Republican legislators and their staff on many other important pending legislative items.
As many of the Representatives' miscellaneous and erroneous allegations relate to claims contained in a federal lawsuit pending against the Harris County Tax Office, it is inappropriate to make a comment on those. Any comment on pending litigation should be directed to the Harris County Attorney's Office. I urge the Plaintiffs and their associates to try this case in a court of law, rather than in the media.
Finally, I must point out the Representatives' poor grasp of simple facts. They boldly stated, "Leo Vasquez administers elections in Harris County." We should be clear that I do not administer elections. I am the Voter Registrar and my office is committed to performing those duties in a non-partisan fashion, per the Texas Election Code, and on a fair and equal basis for all citizens of Harris County.
So there you have it. As I said before, there was a big lack of trust in this office by Democrats thanks to the widespread problems getting voter registrations processed last year as well as the longstanding partisan shilling of now-former Tax Assessor Paul Bettencourt, and that mistrust still lingers after some early missteps by the TAC's office after Vasquez took over. I also recommend you read Vince's post about the disputed testimony. I think even if Ed Emmett draws a serious challenger next year, it's clear what the top tier countywide race is going to be. Anyway, now you know what they had to say about this.
Patricia Kilday Hart has the quote of the day.
The fallout from the State Board of Education's debate over the teaching of evolution continued this morning in the Senate Education Committee, which held a spirited discussion on Sen. Kel Seliger's SB 2275 transferring authority for textbook adoption from the State Board of Education to the state's Education Commissioner.How spirited? Sen. Kip Averitt, one of the most soft-spoken members of the Senate, was moved to observe that partisan discord has so infected the State Board that its Democrats believe "Republicans want to impose their religious beliefs" on public school students while its Republicans believe "Democrats want to teach our children how to masturbate."
That woke up the audience members, some no doubt wondering how such a course might boost their kid's GPA.
Finally, a scholastic category in which we'd have hope of not being Number 50 in the nation. And just imagine what the standardized tests would be like. TFN Insider, which thinks Sen. Seliger's bill is a good idea, and the Observer have more on the debate and on Sen. Averitt's remarks.
Quote of the day runnerup goes to the Wall Street Journal for their article on the SBOE's shenanigans.
"At this point, a lot of us are questioning...whether the state Board of Education serves a purpose anymore," said state Rep. Donna Howard, a Democrat.Most state boards of education oversee curricula and assessment tests, but responsibilities for textbooks and school funding vary from state to state.
Board members, who aren't paid, object to most legislative meddling.
"As crazy as the Texas Board of Education is, there are just as many crazies, percentage-wise, in the state Legislature," said board member Pat Hardy. Another member, Cynthia Dunbar, said the board's fierce debates should be seen as a sign that all views are well represented.
I think it's incumbent on all of us to figure out a way to compare the levels of craziness between the two bodies. Maybe we can get Nate Silver to do some kind of regression analysis on the question. And I must say, regardless of the outcome of that, Cynthia Dunbar does an excellent job of making sure that the crazy constituency is well-represented; hell, between her, Don McLeroy, David Bradley, and some others, that's easily the best-represented group in the state. Which, naturally, brings us back to the point of Sen. Seliger's bill. Here's hoping it makes it through.
Sen. Dan Patrick gets his day in the sun.
Wednesday is the deadline for paying federal income taxes, but it's also when state lawmakers will consider cutting franchise taxes for 132,000 small businesses in Texas including 24,000 in Harris County."This is Texas stimulus. This is a Texas tax cut," said state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who is sponsoring the proposed tax cut in the Senate along with a bipartisan crowd of 24 co-sponsors.
Both Patrick's bill in the Senate and one by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rene Oliveira, D-Brownsville, would exempt small businesses from paying the new franchise tax that was adopted in 2006 to help cover the cost of public school property taxes.
Only businesses with more than $1 million a year in gross receipts would have to pay the tax under their legislation. Patrick's bill would make the cut permanent. Oliveira's bill would have the tax cut expire Jan. 1, 2012.
[...]
The new franchise tax had brought in $1.3 billion more in 2008 than the $3 billion that was collected under the old tax in 2007. But it still was nearly $1.4 billion less than had been expected from the new tax.
The fallout from that shortage would have put a crimp on the state budget for the next two years, but the federal stimulus bill passed and sent $17 billion to the state's coffers.
Now, House and Senate budget writers have put enough contingency funds into their proposed spending plans to cover the expected losses of up to $500 million.
House Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts said nothing will be certain until the budget is finalized but the small business tax cut "is one we hope to have the funds for."
Small businesses were justifiably upset at the new business margins tax because they were made to pay a disproportionate amount of it. There needed to be an adjustment to this tax to rectify that, but Patrick's bill (SB19; Rep. Oliveira appears to have two bills relevant to this, HBs 4766 and 4765) only does the easy half. Without addressing the other, more difficult part of that, this tax will be even more inadequate to the task of paying for the huge property tax cuts that were implemented at the same time. When are we going to deal with that?
But hey, at least we're trying to pay for this tax cut for this biennium. I'm sure Sen. Patrick will send a nice thank-you note to President Obama and the Democrats in Congress for passing the stimulus bill that made this tax cut possible. And I know we'll get cracking on fixing the now-greater revenue shortfalls this cut will cause for the margins tax. Right?
"I'd like to talk about abolishing it (the tax), but there are not the votes to do that," Patrick said.
Yeah, I didn't really think so, either.
The economic downturn plus the housing market crash means there's never been a better time for local governments to bid out construction projects, with more contractors than usual getting involved and competing on price.
The increased competition has cut costs on large and small projects by 25 to 30 percent around the region, officials said, allowing local governments to keep up the pace of roadwork and other construction even as they pinch pennies in other departments.For example, Harris County is close to awarding a $13.1 million contract for a new jury assembly building at Congress and San Jacinto, a project county engineers expected to cost $17 million, said Rich Elwood, who handles the county's major building projects. Bids for a security system upgrade to one of the county's jails came in Monday at $5 million, about a third lower than expected, he said.
"This is a great time for a city to get a lot of work done on the cheap," said Jeffrey T. Nielsen, executive vice president of the Houston Contractors Association, which represents about 400 contractors and suppliers in the eight-county region around Houston. "Our guys are looking for as much work as they can get out and now definitely is the time to build."
[...]
Harris County Commissioners Jerry Eversole and Steve Radack said they are rushing to get projects ready to bid to take advantage of the lower prices. Radack said he is putting road projects out for bid now that originally were planned for the fall.
"Since you have people out there who, frankly, obviously need work, then look at it this way: We save the taxpayers money and at the same time it's helping stimulate the economy locally," he said. "They're able to keep people employed and we're able to get the taxpayers a better deal. It's a pretty logical thing to me."
Funny how that works, isn't it? Keep that in mind when you hear news reports today about those silly protests over "wasteful" spending.
Neil Aquino wrote a post last week about At Large #4 candidate Noel Freeman, whom he had just met, and asked him a few questions about his campaign and vision for the city. Noel's responses are here, and they're worth reading. Check it out.
Looks like we're not ready to make nice with the Harris County Tax Assessor's office over their handling of voter registration last year.
Any honeymoon between Democrats and the new Harris County voter registrar ended suddenly today.Democratic state Reps. Garnet Coleman and Ana Hernandez of Houston said Leo Vasquez, who is tax assessor-collector and voter registration chief, is responsible for staffers who allegedly misled state legislators considering whether to require voters to offer more proof of identification before casting ballots.
"It is up to (Vasquez) to clean up his office," Coleman and Hernandez said in a news media handout. "Otherwise, Leo needs to go."
[...]
Vasquez, saying he is running the registration agency without regard to politics and will not join the GOP frontlines, since has expanded voter registration efforts and hired a Democrat to help with community outreach.
He said today that testimony in Austin last week on the "voter ID" bill by voter registration staffers George Hammerlein and Ed Johnson was no partisan move. The pair, called to testify by Republican lawmakers, took no position on the bill and provided facts as requested, Vasquez said.
Coleman and Hernandez never have taken their concerns to him, Vasquez said, and they owe his staffers an apology for making baseless allegations.
The Democrats today zeroed in on Hammerlein's legislative testimony, several hours into hearing that ran past midnight, that thousands of Harris County residents who registered to vote on time were not eligible to participate in early voting two weeks later because they applied relatively late.
Hammerlein acknowledged today that his statement was wrong and said it was due to the strange hour rather than any attempt to mislead the Legislature.
I've reprinted the press release beneath the fold, and a copy of the doc that spelled out the allegations against Hammerlein and Johnson is here. I've been hearing some grumbling about the way things have been run at the Tax Assessor's office, in particular complaints about being told that deputy registrars could not deliver new registration forms to annex offices. That turned out to be a case of miscommunication between the head office and the annexes. Perhaps that's to be expected with a change in command, but it wasn't a good first impression and it didn't help alleviate any of the lingering mistrust left over from the Bettencourt days. It's not surprising, given the stakes in the voter ID fight, that Vasquez isn't being cut any slack. Stace has more.
Meanwhile, immigration attorney and former Houston City Council member Gordon Quan has an op-ed about voter ID and the Betty Brown incident.
While some will argue that this increases the integrity of the ballot, in reality, voter ID requirements have been overwhelmingly shown to disproportionately disenfranchise older Americans, individuals with disabilities, low income and homeless people, students, married women, minorities and most poignantly, those who, for cultural reasons, may have differing names on differing identification documents. According to the nation's largest exit poll of Asian Americans, nearly 70 percent of Asian voters were asked for ID at the polls -- in states where no ID was required!Voter ID requirements put an inordinate amount of discretion in the hands of already overworked poll workers. Our state and county election offices already find themselves constantly struggling to find the resources to adequately train poll workers and to recruit diverse poll workers who are versed in every possible cultural circumstance that they may encounter. This legislation would take precious funds away from those programs as well as from real priorities such as transportation and education. As evidenced by this episode with Brown and the Elections Committee, even individuals as well versed in the law as they are were unable to understand the complexities associated with Asian names as they relate to voting. Just imagine the difficulty a poll worker would have and how they could easily not allow an eligible voter even with a valid voter registration card to vote.
If you want to discuss this issue in more detail, there will be a conference call Thursday night with Ramey Ko, US Rep. Mike Honda, State Rep. Hubert Vo, Mini Timmaraju of the Asian American Democrats of Texas, and others. The AAA Fund blog has the details. You can submit a question for Ramey Ko ahead of time, but you must RSVP to join the call, so click over for the info if you're interested.
UPDATE: Vince has more on Hammerlein's testimony.
Today, State Representatives Garnet Coleman (Dist. 147) and Ana Hernandez (Dist. 143) called on Republican Tax Assessor Collector Leo Vasquez to dismiss two of his top managers for their dishonest testimony before legislative committees this session. The office has come under fire for mishandling many of its basic duties during the 2008 election. While testifying under oath about proposed Republican Voter Photo ID legislation, Director of Voter Registration George Hammerlein and Associate Director Ed Johnson gave false information in response to questions from legislators about the department's problems."The Harris County Voter Registration Department has put partisanship ahead of voter participation for far too long," said Representative Garnet Coleman.
"Mr. Vasquez's Voter Registration Directors crossed the line when they went to Austin on taxpayer dollars and lied to legislative committees, while offering testimony intended to assist the passage of a partisan voter ID agenda," Coleman added. "Mr. Vasquez should dismiss these employees immediately and make sure our tax dollars are being used to properly carry out the voter registration duties of his office."
On October 20, 2008, the first day of Early Voting, the Houston Chronicle reported that more than 13,000 voter registration applications in Harris County had not yet been processed, meaning these newly registered voters were not able to vote even though they submitted their applications on time. At a Texas House Elections Committee hearing last week, Hammerlein claimed voters who register at the deadline aren't eligible to vote until Election Day anyway, which is patently false. Texas election law explicitly says a person who is eligible to vote on Election Day is eligible to vote early. (Texas Election Code Sec 13.143(b))
Last November, the Republican Chairman of the Harris County Ballot Board Jim Harding, criticized the Tax Assessor's office's handling of provisional ballots, telling the Houston Chronicle that the counting of provisional ballots was delayed by faulty work of the Tax Assessor's staff. But when testifying before the Texas Senate last month, Ed Johnson said his office had nothing to do with provisional ballots -- even though depositions from department employees indicated Johnson was in charge of reviewing provisional ballots that were altered with white out and correction fluid before they were reviewed by the Ballot Board.
"Leo Vasquez should take responsibility for the department's failures and hire individuals who will make sure every eligible citizen is properly registered and able to vote when the polls open," said Representative Ana Hernandez, who noted the previous controversies and problems with the Voter Registration office occurred when the two directors worked for Vasquez's predecessor, Paul Bettencourt.
"Leo Vasquez has to choose: he can clean up his Voter Registration Department or continue the same pattern of partisanship established by Mr. Bettencourt," Hernandez concluded.
Failed 2006 independent gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman has taken the first step toward another bid for Texas governor, this time as a Democrat. He sent out a letter to Texans this morning, which is in full after the jump and excerpted below:
I'll leave it to you to click the link to see what he has to say for himself, cause I got nothing. Matt speaks for me.
Just a reminder about tonight's candidate forum sponsored by the Woodland Heights Civic Association. 7:30 PM at the Zion Lutheran Church on Pecore at Beauchamp. Here's the map, the street address is 3606 Beauchamp.
I am aware of one more candidate forum for this election, to be held on Friday, April 24, which is the last weekday before early voting begins. Via email from Patrick McIlvain:
Event Host: Super Neighborhood 22 and 63 Houston Area League of Women Voters and Ripley HouseEvent: Joint SN District H Special Election Candidates Forum
Date: April 24, 2009 (Early Voting starts on 04-28)
Location: 4410 Navigation Blvd. at Ripley House.
Time: 6:00PM - Meet & Greet Forum at 6:40PM as sharp as possible. Over at 8:30PM. Candidates will meet one on one with interested voters afterward. Doors closed and locked 9PM.
Ripley House is one of the early voting locations for this election. Here's the map to find it.
Finally, if you don't live in District H but feel the need to attend a candidate forum anyway, the Hispanic Organizations' Mayoral Candidate Forum is tonight at 7 PM at the City Hall conference room, 901 Bagby. Stace has the details.
In addition to the other ethics and campaign finance reform bills that I mentioned previously, one other bill set to come up in committee hearings on Wednesday the 15th is HB3146 by Rep. Rafael Anchia, which would allow for the creation of a public financing system for certain judicial races in Texas. It's only at the appeals court and higher (Supreme Court and CCA) levels, and it's an option rather than a requirement, so it's not quite the solution that I'd press for to deal with the issues of judges taking campaign cash from attorneys and other interested parties that regularly appear before them, but it's light years better than the "solution" of non-partisan judicial elections being pushed by the likes of John Cornyn and Wallace Jefferson, since it actually has something to do with the problem at hand. If nothing else, I consider this to be a good start. Vigilant has more information if you want to register your support for this bill in committee.
We may still get some form of expanded gambling in Texas, but at least one form of it is off the table for this session.
The Tiguas hopes to restart lucrative gambling operations on their reservation are dead for this legislative session, state Rep. Norma Chavez, D-El Paso, said Friday.Part of the reason was the criminal record of Tigua Gov. Frank Paiz.
"I believe the Tigua legislation is not salvageable," Chavez said in an interview.
Lawmakers this week told the tribe chances were minuscule that any gambling legislation would pass this year.
Paiz's 20-year criminal history, they said, diminished what were already small odds.
"There are insurmountable obstacles," said state Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, who spoke with the tribe this week about its flagging gambling efforts.
My understanding of this is that bills specific to Tigua matters, such as HB1308 and HJR 108, both of which are Chavez bills, are dead. Other gambling bills, such as HB222 and SJR 31, are still in play.
More details are in this version of the story.
The El Paso Times reported on Paiz's long history with the law last year after he was elected to lead the tribe.Court records and police documents show that Paiz was charged with offenses including theft in 1987, drunken driving in 1992 and assaulting a police officer in 2001. He repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of his probation, and spent at least a month in jail. He was also charged with domestic violence, though the case was dismissed.
Paiz said then that he had changed, had gotten an education and had become a leader in the tribal community. The tribe, he said, knew about his past and decided to give him a second chance.
[...]
Chavez said she told the Tiguas that Paiz's past would be a problem for legislators.
The only chance for gambling this year, she said, was an amendment to the Texas Constitution. That requires approval from 100 of the 150 House members and 21 of the 31 senators before the proposal could be placed on the ballot in November for voters to make a final decision.
Chavez said she could not ask 100 of her colleagues to vote for the tribe when its leader had such a problematic background. Doing so, she said, could put the lawmakers at risk in future elections.
"A CEO of any gaming corporation with the same exact background of the governor wouldn't be allowed to sign a contract with the state, so it's hard to ask my colleagues to do something a CEO can't do," she said.
So there you have it.
Nancy Sarnoff runs an obituary for the Wilshire Village apartments, which are slated for demolition now that they have been officially declared a fire hazard.
A historic Inner Loop apartment complex, once slated for a high-rise redevelopment, was shut down last week after city officials ordered residents to vacate the property.[...]
The complex is the 1940s Wilshire Village apartments at the corner of West Alabama and Dunlavy, one of three Federal Housing Administration-insured garden apartment complexes built here and the only one still in existence, according to architectural historian Stephen Fox.In 2005, the owner announced plans to tear it down and possibly build an upscale tower in its place.
Matt Dilick, a commercial real estate developer who controls the partnership that owns Wilshire Village, said the demolition process will start "relatively soon."
"The buildings are unsafe, and for numerous years prior groups have not kept the buildings maintained or the property up to city code," he said. "The dilapidated buildings are an eyesore to the public and to the numerous homeowners and businesses in the area."
[...]
As far the property's redevelopment, "plans have not been released," said Dilick, adding that the prime site is best suited for apartments, shops and a hotel.
Okay, an apartment is obvious; one hopes this one will be better maintained than the Wilshire ultimately was. Shops I can see, as long as they figure out how to incorporate parking. The other side of Dunlavy is a strip center anchored by a Fiesta, so more shops would fit in just fine. But a hotel? And was this really considered a good spot for a high-rise? I can't see it. Dunlavy is a narrow little street. It's not particularly close to an entrance or exit on 59, which would seem to be a negative for a hotel. It's not far from Greenway Plaza or the Museum District, but as far as I know there's no shortage of hotels in those areas, certainly not one acute enough that it would need to be relieved by new construction there. It's all bungalows in the immediate area, so anything over three stories would stick out like a sore thumb. Basically, it's analogous to the Ashby Highrise, with slightly better vehicular throughput potential and probably less political clout. I don't see how a hotel makes sense, and I don't even see how a developer might see how a hotel makes sense. Am I missing something?
Actually, there is one possibility: The Universities line will have a stop at Dunlavy, so the area will have very easy access to light rail. Maybe that figures in to the calculation. Whether that's the case or not, I hope whoever redevelops the property includes improvements to the sidewalk, as that will make getting to that rail stop much more pleasant. And hopefully whatever does get built there will be at least mostly done before the U-line is in place, so that stretch won't be all torn up while people are trying to get to the station. Swamplot has more.
Time again for another Texas Progressive Alliance blog roundup. Click on for the highlights.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chismes noticed Fort Bend County was slapped by the DOJ for actual election integrity problems. Voters were illegally denied provisional ballots and Spanish speakers were not accommodated. Betty Brown probably wishes those voters would make life easier for English-speaking poll workers.
BossKitty at TruthHugger cannot accept that Tax Laws, Tax Legislation and Lawmakers are ignorant to the fact that keeping the taxpayer clueless brings in more revenue. Built in vagueness and contradiction guarantee more tax dollars collected. This country has brainwashed its taxpayers, that it is easier to waste their money on sleazy preparers and tax software, than to learn what taxes are all about. Taxpayers are complicit in their own misery, even though the government really tries to make the facts available. Taxpayers are convinced that taxes are just a necessary evil ... "Death and Taxes". But today, Can You Trust Your Tax Software When It Can't Keep Up.
Neil at Texas Liberal posted a video using Franklin Roosevelt and George W. Bush dolls to illustrate the recent liberal ascendancy in the United States.
We all had some fun at Rep. Betty Brown's expense last week, but Off the Kuff noted that there was a bill pending before Rep. Brown's Elections Committee that would actually help alleviate some of the problems that prevent eligible citizens from casting their ballots.
At Texas Kaos, it's been a bemusing week of watching Glenn Beck prepare to storm the Alamo City with Tea Bags. But nothing could have prepared us for Rick Perry linking his fortunes with Beck after his gasoline drenched performance Apparently a primary threat in the Texas Republican Party means you double down on the batshit crazy lies. Who knew?
Kim Jong Il wasn't the only person to fire a missile this week. McBlogger went ballistic over that dapper Senator Watson.
The Employee Free Choice Act met the Democratic Senator from the Great State of Wal-Mart and is headed down to defeat as a result. PDiddie at Brains and
Eggs has more on the Senate's caving in once again to the
corporations.
Asian American Action Fund Blog has extensive coverage of Betty Brown's ridiculous questioning of Ramey Ko from our first report to Brown's "apology" and Ko's description of their conversation. In addition, there are link roundups of most coverage of the incident from the 9th and 10th. And don't miss law professor Frank Wu's exploration of the matter. We will provide further updates as this story continues to develop.
Vince at Capitol Annex takes a look at the 20 Republicans in the Texas House who voted against education benefits for veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I suppose this was inevitable, given how low the fruit was hanging. But now that we've had all this fun at Rep. Betty Brown's expense, I've got to agree with David Mauro in that this has largely served to reinforce negative stereotypes of Texas and Texans around the world. So for being this session's Al Edwards, may I just say to Betty Brown: "Thanks a hell of a lot".
University of Texas regents today settled an open records lawsuit, agreeing to give hiring priority to 2,400 employees laid off at UTMB in December, one of the plaintiffs said.In return for dropping the lawsuit, the regents also agreed to allow a Harris County judge to act as an arbitrator in disputes over rehiring, said Tom Johnson, Texas Faculty Association executive director.
The association and three Galveston residents filed the lawsuit last month saying that the firings were illegal because they were done in violation of the open meetings act. The suit accused the regents of convening four closed meetings, three by conference calls.
Barry Burgdorf, UT system vice chancellor and general counsel, said that the agreement to give fired employees priority was already policy at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
I'm sure there will be a longer version of this story in the morning. Given that this lawsuit was only filed in December, I have to think that the quickness of this settlement is indicative of UTMB deciding that its position was not tenable. The first ruling, over venue, went for the plaintiffs. Given that UTMB was going to be staying in Galveston and was already rehiring laid-off workers, you have to wonder what there was left for them to go to the mat over. Be that as it may, kudos to the winners for forcing the issue. I've got a press release from the Texas Faculty Association, which has some related news on its blog, beneath the fold.
Five months after filing an Texas Open meetings Act Lawsuit to protest a widespread reduction in force at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) at Galveston, The Texas Faculty Association and Galveston Plaintiffs Dr. Kay Sandor, Dianna Puccetti, Allen LeCornu and Dr. Thomas Albrecht have settled their suit with the University of Texas System and its Board of Regents.Nearly three thousand employees were initially laid off in November 2008. The settlement announced today provides that all Rif'ed employees will remain on an official "Re-Employment List" for 36 months from the date of termination. As jobs are restored, they will be advertised on UTMB's website, and former employees on the Re-Employment List have up to 20 business days from the date the job was posted to express interest in the job, at which time the former employee will be interviewed.
The former employee will be hired if qualified and as long as there is not another person more qualified. "Qualified" is based on factors such as experience and education, and UTMB cannot use comparative cost to re-employ as a reason to deny reemployment.
If a former employee is not rehired, s/he may demand binding arbitration with well-respected, independent former Harris County Judge Susan Sousson of Houston. The arbitrator will decide whether UTMB had good cause to deny re-employment; however the burden of proof is on the former employee. AAA arbitration rules will apply. The decision of the arbitrator will be final.
"The Texas Faculty Association applauds all those who have been so instrumental in effecting this settlement with the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System. TFA is pleased that in these difficult times it has been able to advocate for the protections and job status of its members at UTMB through the tireless efforts of Tom Johnson, Executive Director of TFA," said TFA President Dr. Kenneth Buckman, a philosophy professor at the University of Texas, Pan American.
"Also, George Reamy, TFA Member Advocate, spent great energy and many hours pushing the rights of the TFA membership at UTMB and brought to light the unfairness of the practices imposed on the faculty and other employees there, often leading the struggle to obtain justice," Buckman added.
"Particular kudos go out to Joe Jaworski, who carried the weight of our complaint, fighting for not only TFA but the citizens of Galveston and the larger UTMB community. Finally, we would like to thank the UT System Board of Regents for coming to the table and carving out solutions to a difficult situation," said Buckman.
Plaintiffs' attorney Joe Jaworski enthusiastically endorsed the settlement: "Today's agreement provides for a fair mechanism to help former UTMB employees reclaim their jobs. UTMB will rebuild on Galveston Island, and as it rebuilds jobs will be restored and workers will come home to the alma mater of Texas medical education and one of the finest hospitals in Texas."
One never really expects bills relating to ethics and campaign finance reform to make it through the process, but it's still a good idea to keep an eye on them.
In the last session, for example, at least 105 bills related to general ethics, lobbying or campaign-finance were filed. Only nineteen became law.This session, members of the House and Senate again are considering more than 100 bills.
Among them are bills that would places caps on individual campaign donations to candidates, prohibit former lawmakers from immediately becoming lobbyists and prevent campaign payments to relatives.
Another bill, filed by Charlie Geren, R-River Oaks, would make lawmakers who run afoul of the ethics rules pay fines to the Texas Ethics Commission with personal funds, rather than with campaign donations.
"It makes a bigger impression on you if you write your own check rather than out of campaign dollars," he said. "It doesn't make any sense to me to fine me $500, or $50,000, and I can just go down the hall, raise it and pay it."
Geren said some of his colleagues strongly objected to his bill. Among the other bills that could face challenges is a measure that would explicitly prohibit any payments of campaign funds to relatives.
The bill, by state Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, is a reaction to recent ethics findings against lawmakers who, for example, hired their wives as campaign bookkeepers.
"We're trying to make sure that campaign contributions are used in furtherance of another cause, and that it's not a slush fund to pay members of your family," she said.
Another bill would restrict the most prolific donors from giving more than $100,000 in total to all candidates during an election cycle.
Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, for example, has donated more than $2.1 million to elected officials from both parties since January 2008, according to campaign finance reports.
Geren's bill is HB477, Thompson's is HB3178. It's hard to argue with Geren's bill, since what he describes is generally what happens. I will say that TEC enforcement, such as it is, tends to be a bit capricious, and their guidelines are not nearly as concise as they should be; as such, I'm at least somewhat sympathetic to claims that this will be unfair to the members who aren't as well-heeled as some of their colleagues. Still, I think the general principle is correct. As for Rep. Thompson's bill, the poster child here is Christi Craddick (latter link is a PDF). Were it not for abuses like that, I wouldn't care much about a bill like that, but if it weren't for abuses like that such a bill likely wouldn't exist in the first place.
The contributions limit bill is HB391, by Reps. Mike Villarreal and Mark Strama; both have introduced legislation like this in previous sessions. It's something I've been calling for myself for some time now, so I'll be rooting for it. As with the others, I don't really expect it to get anywhere, but bills like these serve a useful purpose regardless. If nothing else, I look forward to hearing what the opponents have to say about it.
Swing State Project has compiled a list of Presidential results by Congressional district, for all 435 DCs around the country. I've pulled out the Texas numbers and put them in a Google spreadsheet for ease of viewing. Here are a few notable ones:
CD Incumbent Obama Kerry Gore
===================================
03 Johnson 42 33 30
07 Culberson 41 36 31
10 McCaul 44 38 34
21 Smith 41 34 31
22 Olson 41 36 33
24 Marchant 44 35 32
26 Burgess 42 35 38
31 Carter 42 33 32
32 Sessions 46 40 36
The numbers represent the percentage of the vote the Democratic Presidential nominee got in that district in that year. I believe this is a two-party comparison, so Nader votes were excluded; in other years, the third-party Presidential vote is small enough to not matter much. "Incumbent" refers to the 2008 officeholder.
(By the way, my assumption is that the 2000 results are derived from taking the data from the existing precincts for that year, regardless of which actual CD they were in at that time. That must be the case, because CDs 31 and 32 didn't exist in 2000.)
You can also now see similar figures from the Cook Political Report, which just released its updated PVIs to reflect the 2008 Presidential cycle. What does this mean?
The Cook Political Report Partisan Voter Index (PVI) ExplainedIn August of 1997, The Cook Political Report introduced the Partisan Voting Index (PVI) as a means of providing a more accurate picture of the competitiveness of each of the 435 congressional districts. Using the 1992 and 1996 major-party Presidential voting results, the PVI measured how each congressional district performed compared to the nation as a whole.
Using the results of the 2004 and 2008 elections, we have updated these PVI ratings and have even more information to draw upon to understand the congressional level trends and tilts that will help to define upcoming elections.
Developed for The Cook Political Report by Polidata, the index is an attempt to find an objective measurement of each congressional district that allows comparisons between states and districts, thereby making it relevant in both mid-term and presidential election years.
While other data such as the results of senatorial, gubernatorial, congressional and other local races can help fine tune the exact partisan tilt of a particular district, those kinds of results don't allow a comparison of districts across state lines. Only Presidential results allow for total comparability.
A Partisan Voting Index score of D+2, for example, means that in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, that district performed an average of two points more Democratic than the nation did as a whole, while an R+4 means the district performed four points more Republican than the national average. If a district performed within half a point of the national average in either direction, we assign it a score of EVEN.
To determine the national average for these latest ratings, we have taken the average Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote for 2004 and 2008, which is roughly 51.3 percent, and that of Republicans, which is roughly 48.7 percent. So, if John Kerry captured 55 percent of the vote in a district and Barack Obama carried 57 percent in the district four years later, the district would have a PVI score of roughly D+5.
And here are the PVIs for the Texas districts:
Couple things here. You know how I feel about districts like 07, 10, and 32 already. I've touched on CD24 a bit as well, and I want to come back to it again here. This is a district that deserves a serious challenger. If the DCCC plans to be even a little aggressive on the offense this next cycle, instead of simply playing defense everywhere - and with the ad buys we've seen so far in 10 and 32, I think we can say they will be - CD24 should be on their roster of places to try to help the locals find a candidate. The trend is clear.DISTRICT PVI Rank 2008 Results 2004 Results --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TX 1 GOHMERT, LOUIE (R) R+21 17 McCain (38) 69 30 BUSH (39) 69 31 TX 2 POE, TED (R) R+13 76 McCain (20) 60 40 BUSH (27) 63 37 TX 3 JOHNSON, SAM (R) R+14 69 McCain (16) 57 42 BUSH (34) 67 33 TX 4 HALL, RALPH M. (R) R+21 14 McCain (39) 69 30 BUSH (41) 70 30 TX 5 HENSARLING, JEB (R) R+17 35 McCain (27) 63 36 BUSH (35) 67 33 TX 6 BARTON, JOE (R) R+15 56 McCain (20) 60 40 BUSH (33) 67 34 TX 7 CULBERSON, JOHN (R) R+13 82 McCain (17) 58 41 BUSH (29) 64 36 TX 8 BRADY, KEVIN (R) R+25 8 McCain (48) 74 25 BUSH (45) 73 28 TX 9 Green, Al (D) D+22 393 Obama (55) 23 77 Kerry (40) 30 70 TX 10 MCCAUL, MICHAEL T. (R) R+10 107 McCain (11) 55 44 BUSH (24) 62 38 TX 11 CONAWAY, K. MICHAEL (R) R+28 3 McCain (52) 75 24 BUSH (57) 78 22 TX 12 GRANGER, KAY (R) R+16 37 McCain (27) 63 36 BUSH (34) 67 33 TX 13 THORNBERRY, MAC (R) R+29 2 McCain (54) 76 23 BUSH (56) 78 22 TX 14 PAUL, RON (R) R+18 24 McCain (33) 66 33 BUSH (34) 67 33 TX 15 Hinojosa, Ruben (D) D+ 3 265 Obama (20) 40 60 BUSH (3) 51 49 TX 16 Reyes, Silvestre (D) D+10 327 Obama (32) 33 66 Kerry (13) 44 57 TX 17 Edwards, Chet (D) R+20 19 McCain (35) 67 32 BUSH (40) 70 30 TX 18 Jackson-Lee, Sheila (D) D+24 400 Obama (55) 22 77 Kerry (44) 28 72 TX 19 NEUGEBAUER, RANDY (R) R+26 5 McCain (45) 72 27 BUSH (55) 78 23 TX 20 Gonzalez, Charles A. (D) D+ 8 316 Obama (28) 36 63 Kerry (10) 45 55 TX 21 SMITH, LAMAR (R) R+14 66 McCain (18) 58 40 BUSH (32) 66 34 TX 22 OLSON, PETE (R) R+13 84 McCain (17) 58 41 BUSH (29) 64 36 TX 23 Rodriguez, Ciro D. (D) R+ 4 195 Obama (3) 48 51 BUSH (15) 57 43 TX 24 MARCHANT, KENNY (R) R+11 93 McCain (11) 55 44 BUSH (30) 65 35 TX 25 Doggett, Lloyd (D) D+ 6 293 Obama (20) 39 59 Kerry (7) 46 54 TX 26 BURGESS, MICHAEL C. (R) R+13 83 McCain (17) 58 41 BUSH (29) 65 35 TX 27 Ortiz, Solomon P. (D) R+ 2 222 Obama (7) 46 53 BUSH (10) 55 45 TX 28 Cuellar, Henry (D) EVEN 240 Obama (12) 44 56 BUSH (8) 54 46 TX 29 Green, Gene (D) D+ 8 307 Obama (24) 38 62 Kerry (11) 44 56 TX 30 Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D) D+27 409 Obama (64) 18 82 Kerry (50) 25 75 TX 31 CARTER, JOHN R. (R) R+14 70 McCain (16) 57 41 BUSH (33) 67 34 TX 32 SESSIONS, PETE (R) R+ 8 134 McCain (7) 53 46 BUSH (19) 60 40
One other thing that stands out to me in these numbers is that some interesting choices will need to be made come redistricting time. There's a lot of not-very-solid Republican districts in the D/FW area, and there's going to be a new district added in for 2012. I can't see how that isn't a Democratic seat - there just aren't enough Republican votes to go around and keep all the incumbents safe. Remember the lesson of the State House - overreaching will bite you in the butt.
Finally, remember how in 2002 and 2004 a whole lot of Democratic candidates for office ran on how much they agreed with President Bush? It's quite clear that President Obama will get very few crossover votes from the current Republican delegation; at this point, for better or worse, the idea of "unified opposition" to the Obama agenda is firmly embedded as the GOP strategy. It's not out of the question that some of the No votes they'll be making will put a few of them in an uncomfortable position in 2010, such as thei early vote they made against supporting S-CHIP; again, of course, this depends on them having a viable, funded candidate opposing them to point those votes out. This will be well worth keeping an eye on going forward.
I've said before and I'll say again that I think this is going to be a quiet year at the Congressional level in Texas. No re-redistricting, no special elections, no Tom DeLay drama, and no real clue how things will play out in the 2011 Lege is a recipe for humdrumness. There's always the possibility of surprise, and you know what districts I'd like to see some action in, but the early line is for a snoozefest. We'll see how it plays out.
KXAN's Jenny Hoff has a really good interview with Ramey Ko about last week's Betty Brown incident. She gets into some depth about why Rep. Brown's dumb remarks are problematic and how it all relates to voter ID, and includes a clip from "Saturday Night Live" that makes fun of Rep. Brown as well. Check it out.
My reaction to this story about whether some development projects that didn't benefit from getting a TIRZ designation might have been better suited for it than some that did get that benefit is that as long as there are those who get and those who don't we'll always have those questions. Maybe that's an argument for doing away with TIRZes entirely (I suspect such a proposal would not go very far) or for making the rules about them more objective, but I don't think you'll ever be able to remove subjective evaluations and, yes, politics from consideration. I also don't think comparing two recent projects will tell us much, since frankly either of them could have gone either way.
As for the case in question here, there's no doubt that Sawyer Street needs massive improvements between I-10 and Washington Avenue. Between the successful Sawyer Heights development and the new housing springing up on the side roads, what used to be a low-traffic street for mostly trucks is now heavily used, both to access what's now there and as a cut-through to I-45 by those who want to avoid the horrible I-10 to I-45 interchange. It's likely to get busier as the industrial lots in the area get sold off and redeveloped. I believe a proposal to fix and widen Sawyer Street is in the CIP for District H; all I can say is the sooner the better. Perhaps we'd have gotten a good result faster if Sawyer Heights' TIRZ plan had been accepted, and perhaps we'll get a better result this way, I don't know. As long as it happens and gets done right, that's what will matter.
If you read the Texas Monthly cover story from last March about Waco pastor Matt Baker, who has been accused of killing his wife Kari, whose death had originally been ruled a suicide, you will be interested to hear that a grand jury has now indicted him for that crime. It's a fascinating story, one from which I came away unsure about what really happened. It's also a really hard story to read, since the incident that triggered Kari Baker's presumed suicide was the death from cancer of their young daughter Kassidy. Kassidy was one year old at the time of her death, the same age Audrey was when that issue arrived in my mailbox, and it still hits me just writing these words. Anyway, it's a worthwhile read, just be prepared for the emotions that will come with it.
People have been telling me lately that it's been too long since I've posted a picture of the girls. So here you go:
Happy Easter! And now it's time for a nap.
Mmm...baseball season...life is good...
When Bill O'Reilly and David Horowitz are acting as voices of reason, you know things have really gotten out of hand.
I don't care if broccoli can prevent cancer. I still hate it and won't eat it.
The Chia Obama. Really now, do I have to say any more? Not available in stores, as they say. Via John.
Kumar Goes To The White House.
No more DRM in iTunes. I just hope the songs I've been waiting to buy so I could get them DRM-free haven't gotten more expensive.
Oh, and aparently Amazon is keeping up with iTunes. And they were always DRM-free, so they're just raising prices because they can. Bummer.
I'm with Pete. That's a direction the "Twilight" franchise really needs to take.
It's nice that Washington Post reporters and weatherbloggers are willing to call out George Will for his repeated and unrepentant lying about global warming. The real question is why do editors across the country and especially at the Post enable him to lie on their pages in the first place. What does a guy like that have to do to be disqualified from being a pundit?
What's your quarterback's Cutler number?
Apparently, Norm Coleman = Al Gore. It's so hard to keep up these days.
The Burleson Tea Party is gonna be awesome.
We live in a very strange world where increases are reported as cuts.
Stories like this are a big part of the reason why I was hopeful about the promise of municipal WiFi, and why I still hope something like it will happen.
Ebert v. O'Reilly. Watch out for an ambush, Roger!
"They are not tea parties. They are tea tantrums."
The venerable Saffir-Simpson scale for measuring hurricane strength is so simple to use, it's not really adequate for the task of assessing risk and estimating damage.
"If I could wave a wand and make it go away, I would," said Bill Read, at the National Hurricane Conference in Austin on Friday. "It made sense in the era it was conceived, four decades ago, and now it's ingrained in the culture."Attendees at the hurricane center have buzzed about the Saffir-Simpson scale's inadequacies.
KHOU-TV's chief meteorologist Gene Norman said it needs to be modified to better account for surge.
Greg Bostwick, a meteorologist at KFDM-TV in Beaumont, said his viewers couldn't believe how "only" a Category 2 storm striking 90 miles away could flood one-third of Orange County.
Some hurricane scientists, such as Mark Powell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division, have been arguing in recent months to replace the Saffir-Simpson scale entirely.
Powell said the scale is especially deceptive when it comes to storm surges, and when you review the data there's simply no correlation between the category of a hurricane and the amount of land it inundates.
[...]
Based upon maximum sustained winds, the scale ranges from Category 1, the weakest hurricane classification, to the fearsome and rare Category 5, with winds greater than 155 mph.
But the scale fails to take a host of factors into account -- such as physical size and rainfall potential -- that are critical to determining whether a particular storm will have a large surge or cause inland flooding, like Houston experienced during Tropical Storm Allison in 2001.
No big surprise here. The Saffir-Simpson scale is essentially one-dimensional, so of course it can only capture so much information in it. I'm a little incredulous that anyone who watched any of the Ike coverage from last year could have seen the satellite pictures showing just how massive it was and not imagined how much havoc it would wreak. Having said that, the words "at least it's just a Cat 2" escaped my lips more than once during the run-up. Perhaps another number, one that's more evocative than just a storm surge size, would help. If we can replace the Richter scale with something better, surely we can do it for the Saffir-Simpson as well.
The headline says it all: GOP holds key to unemployment stimulus dollars.
Against the wishes of Gov. Rick Perry, lawmakers are pressing ahead with efforts to claim $555 million in federal economic stimulus money for unemployment benefits.With all of the Senate Democrats already on board, a small group of Republican senators hold the key votes needed for passage.
Sen. Kevin Eltife, R-Tyler, is rounding up votes for his bill that would make changes in the state's unemployment program so that Texas can qualify for that money.
Perry made national headlines last month when he said he doesn't want the money because changing the program would mean increasing the size of government and higher costs for employers. Eltife says the unemployment fund is in such bad shape that it needs the stimulus money.
The Tyler Republican needs support from two-thirds of the Senate to bring up his bill for consideration, which means he'll need to win over at least eight of his 18 Republican colleagues. "I'm pretty close to getting the two-thirds I need," Eltife said this week.
[...]
"It's really easy to do a 20-second sound bite to make the public believe that it's best not to take the money," Eltife said. "It's a lot harder to show in details the numbers and why it makes sense to take this money. And I think when you can get one-on-one with elected officials and explain it to them, you can get support."
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, discussed the bill with Eltife on Wednesday evening and said he would look at it further. "If there's a net gain to Texas and there's no harm to Texas business, then I would think all of us ought to be supportive," Dewhurst said. "It's probably a week too early to give a verdict on that."
It'll be interesting to see just which Senate Republicans support this. If I had to guess, I'd think maybe Kip Averitt and John Carona, both of whom have had sensible things to say about government spending this session, and Steve Ogden, who I think could be persuaded by the economic case, might be on board. On the other side, there's no way Dan Patrick will be for this - frankly, I'd be surprised to see any of the Harris County GOP delegation (Jackson, Huffman, Williams) vote for it. Beyond that, who knows? There must be more than this if Eltife is correct to say he's close to getting the votes he needs. Maybe if Dewhurst is on board, it can happen. We'll know soon enough, I suppose. Thanks to EoW for the heads up.
By the way, according to Burka, if unemployment levels in Texas stay as they have been for one more month, the amount of stimulus funding available to us would increase to $600 million.
As is the norm when a new President is inaugurated, US Attorney Johnny Sutton of the Western Judicial District of Texas has resigned his position.
Sutton's resignation was voluntary, [spokeswoman Shana] Jones said, and his future plans were not immediately disclosed. He was not available for comment.U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said Sutton "did a good job overall as U.S. attorney."
Appointed to the office by President George W. Bush in 2001, Sutton followed a time-worn practice of stepping down to allow a new president to nominate a replacement.
[...]
The resignation leaves a vacancy in the Western District of Texas, which includes San Antonio, Waco, Del Rio, Austin and El Paso.
There are also U.S. attorney vacancies in the Southern District, which includes Laredo and Houston, and the Northern District, which includes Dallas.
Texas's two U.S. senators and congressional Democrats will now begin vetting candidates for the positions.
The delegation will offer candidates to Obama, whose final nominees will need Senate confirmation.
Lawyers who have expressed interest in Sutton's post include Juanita C. Hernández with the Securities and Exchange Commission; Mike McCrum, a former federal prosecutor; San Antonio City Attorney Michael Bernard; and Travis County Attorney David Escamilla.
Also interested are: Austin lawyer Scott Hendler; Robert Pittman, a U.S. magistrate judge in Austin; and John Murphy, a Western District federal prosecutor.
The only name on that list with which I'm familiar is David Escamilla; if anyone knows anything about these folks, please leave a comment. As with the vacancy in Houston, I hope and expect that Democratic applicants be given priority. Assuming that Sen. Cornymandias doesn't try to change the rules, of course.
The most interesting bit in this story about "sexting" is after the jump when it turns to the DA's office for its perspective.
Eric Devlin, chief of the child exploitation section of the Harris County District Attorney's Office, says he gets calls about sexting every week and considers each case individually.If the sexting seems to be confined to teens exhibiting poor judgment or crying for attention, he contacts their parents and talks to them frankly.
The parent-child relationship is not a democracy, he says. Parents are paying for those cell phones, and they need to check them regularly to make sure their kids are using them appropriately.
"We like the parents to handle these kinds of problems," Devlin says. "We're not looking to arrest kids and charge them and affect their future. I think states that do that are going too far."
Devlin makes it clear, however, that he takes every case seriously, and he looks for signs of adults who are preying on children.
"They may start off befriending the children and attempting to gain their confidence," he says. "From there they'll ask for pictures, but not graphic pictures. Then they go down the steps to what they want."
Those are the cases Devlin prosecutes.
Given the way some prosecutors have handled these cases, that's a refreshingly enlightened viewpoint. Kudos to Devlin for having a sense of proportion.
The Asian American Action Fund blog talks to Ramey Ko about the Betty Brown incident, and also about her apology, which wasn't particularly well received by the Asian American community. There's a lot more coverage of this story, which has gone global, at the AAA Fund. Check it out.
A district court judge has suspended the new drivers license rules implemented by the Department of Public Safety pending a civil trial on the grounds that DPS didn't have the authority to do what it did.
The rules prevent thousands from getting standard-issue licenses even though they're legally in the country, said the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is suing over the policy.District Judge Orlinda L. Naranjo said the rules -- which specify that people who aren't U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents must prove they're legally here before getting a license -- go beyond DPS authority.
"This case is not about illegal immigrants obtaining driver licenses, it is about legal residents who have been denied or have been threatened a denial of a driver license," Naranjo wrote to lawyers, saying she was granting a temporary injunction. After a formal order, such an injunction would block the rules pending a trial.
[...]
"DPS has created havoc by attempting to inject its political agenda into the lawmaking process and improperly giving second-class status to individuals who in every way have complied with the laws of the land regarding their presence in the United States and Texas," said David Hinojosa, MALDEF lead attorney in the case.
Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio, said the rule changes "had no legislative backing. State agencies do not have the power to pass rules that contradict or fail to comply with state laws."
Before the rules were changed, an unexpired visa was accepted as proof of identify for someone seeking a driver's license, Naranjo noted. The change required the visa to have been issued for at least a year and have at least six months remaining on it when presented to DPS.
[...]
Naranjo wrote: "State agencies possess only those powers granted to them by the Legislature ... The Court finds that the Legislature did not give DPS the authority to create a new category of ineligible persons to receive a driver license."
Apparently, what Judge Naranjo said isn't good enough for DPS.
The state said it has filed notice that it will appeal the decision by State District Judge Orlinda Naranjo of Travis County, who said DPS acted outside the scope of its authority in its changes to driver's license rules last year.DPS said the appeal means those rules -- touted last year as a crackdown on unauthorized immigrants -- will remain in effect until the merits of the appeal are decided.
"Noncitizens or temporary visitors to the United States who appear at DPS driver license offices will not be issued driver licenses if they do not meet current identification rules," the agency said.
Not so fast, said the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which sued over the rules and persuaded Naranjo to agree to the temporary injunction.
The group will oppose the state's effort to keep the current rules in place while the appeal is pending, said staff attorney David Hinojosa: "We would fight that."
If filing an appeal means you can ignore a judge's order, then what's the point of having the district courts? I don't know why DPS thinks this order doesn't apply to it until the 3rd Court of Appeals says so, but I hope that should the 3rd Court uphold the district court's ruling that DPS will abide by it. And I hope that the 3rd Court will clarify what should have happened here. This strikes me as a potentially dangerous precedent.
Anyway. Just to review the history, DPS implemented this rule change in October. Stories about the difficulties that legal immigrants faced getting licenses soon followed, as did two different lawsuits to force DPS to rescind that rule. I'm not sure if they were combined into one or if the other case is still pending. There's also been legislation filed to prevent DPS from doing this, though I doubt it will pass; as of today, both HB1278 and its companion SB2261 are in committee. If it is the courts that ultimately decide this, we're a long way off from a resolution.
New blog alert - Mayoral Musings, by Nancy Sims, who is a PR professional and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the University of Houston. From the welcome post:
This Blog has been created to serve as a resource for the 2009 Houston Mayoral Campaign. It has been discussed with each Mayoral candidate and they plan to share important information.[...]
Historically, only about 1/3 of eligible voters in Houston select the Mayor in open contests. Voter turnout has been as low as 20%. These numbers tell a sad story. A select few Houstonians are choosing our leaders.
It is my deepest hope that this Blog, along with other coverage, will increase these numbers in 2009!
We will provide a one-stop source with as much information as possible on the Mayoral race, including candidate press releases, announcements, events, public forums and more.
I've got it in my feeds now. I'm looking forward to seeing more coverage on this race.
I was going to jump into some new music this week, but when I remembered that today is Good Friday, I figured I'd do a theme list instead. So here, for Good Friday, are ten good songs:
1. Two Good Men - Woody Guthrie
2. You Know I'm No Good - Amy Winehouse
3. Have A Good Time - Paul Simon
4. Good Rockin' Daddy - Ball, Barton, Strehli
5. Good At That - Eddie From Ohio
6. I Got It Bad (And That Ain't Good) - Duke Ellington
7. Good Man, Good Woman - Bonnie Raitt
8. My Best Was Never Good Enough - Bruce Springsteen
9. Good Thing - Fine Young Cannibals
10. Good Thang - Miss Molly
And with that, I'll say "Have a good weekend".
In case you missed it, here's State Rep. Betty Brown's apology for her dumb remarks about Asian names.
Answering a swarm of phone calls during a brief break on the House floor, Rep. Betty Brown , R-Terrell, kept telling reporters she was misunderstood."I never meant they should change their names," said Rep. Brown.
[...]
[Ramey] Ko confirmed that Brown's office called him after the Texas Democratic Party cried foul. Brown said she had called Ko to apologize.
"We're ready to work with any of these people who are having problems and have them educate us on anything that might be going on that we're unaware of," said Brown.
There's video at that link as well. One way that Rep. Brown could make good on that promise and show that her apology was sincere would be to get behind HB1457 by Rep. Scott Hochberg, which is currently pending in the Elections Committee on which Rep. Brown sits. The bill states, in part:
SECTION 1. Chapter 11, Election Code is amended by adding Section 11.0005 to read as follows: Sec. 11.0005. GENERAL POLICY REGARDING ELIGIBILITY. It is the policy of this state that no qualified citizen shall be denied the right to vote due to governmental clerical errors or due to technical defects on an applicant's voter registration application as long as the information on the application demonstrates that the citizen is qualified to vote.
In other words, just because some clerk somewhere got confused about how someone's name is spelled, or over the fact that some people are legitimately known by more than one name, doesn't mean someone who is eligible to vote cannot vote. That would go a long way, I think. Heck, just imagine how many people here in Harris County would have benefited from having this in place last year. What do you say, Betty?
Anyway. There's not much point at this time in trying to round up more links about this, since you pretty much can't read a blog today and not stumble across some reference to the story. I will point out the Asian American Action Fund blog, which has a couple of statements, the former from the Asian-American Democrats of Texas and the latter from New York City Council Member John Liu, that are worth reading. Maybe, just maybe, this incident will make a few people realize what the opposition to voter ID has been about, and we can keep something bad from happening when the House takes up the matter. I'm going to hope so, anyway.
UPDATE: OK, here is one more link worth your time, from MOMocrats.
UPDATE: One more statement, from the gressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), is beneath the fold.
UPDATE: More reactions to Brown from around the country.
CAPAC opposes voter ID laws that disenfranchise disadvantaged communitiesWashington, DC - Today, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) expressed fierce opposition to voter identification legislation that raise significant barriers to voting for minorities and other disadvantaged communities. Rep. Michael Honda, chair of CAPAC, issued the following statement, particularly addressing Texas voter identification legislation, SB 362:
"Voter identification laws have a discriminatory impact on minority communities, new American voters, the poor, elderly, and those with disabilities. Placed into proper historical context, the financial costs involved in obtaining proper documents needed to get a government-issued ID, along with transportation costs and time taken off from work, amount to a modern-day poll tax.
"With respect to the Asian American and Pacific Islander community, demands for identification usually stem from perceptions that the voter does not appear to be an American citizen, perceptions that are based on xenophobia and discrimination. The recent comments of Texas State Representative Betty Brown clearly reflect these xenophobic and un-American sentiments. We look forward to a public apology from Rep. Brown for her outrageous proposal that Asian American voters adopt names that are 'easier for Americans to deal with' for purposes of identifying names on voter rolls.
"A study by Project Vote noted that Asian American voters in states that required a form of ID were 8.5% less likely to vote compared to Asian American voters in states without voter identification requirements. Research from the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) shows that poll workers oftentimes improperly demand identification from Asian American and Pacific Islander voters, particularly language minority voters, even when not required by law.
"These studies give us some insight into the nature of voter identification laws. That is why the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus opposes voter identification legislation such as the Texas bill, as they strike the wrong balance. There is no proof that voter fraud is a significant problem, and data shows a disparate impact on vulnerable populations. In this day and age, I am appalled that there are still those who are working harder to prevent voters from exercising their democratic right than helping to ensure that eligible voter can participate."
This story just boggles my mind.
Think traffic congestion is bad now? Wait until 2012.That's when Texas' highway fund -- which relies on a motor fuels tax that hasn't been raised since 1991 -- will be out of money for new construction contracts, according to state senators and transportation officials urging action now on new funding options.
"The course we're on will result in no new roads in Texas in the very near future," Sen. John Carona, Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee chairman, said Wednesday.
To try to address the problem, the Texas Senate on Wednesday gave preliminary approval 23-8 to a bill by Carona, R-Dallas, to allow local-option elections in regions around the state to raise fees or taxes for local projects.
The bill in question is SB855.
While lawmakers consider the issue, Texas Transportation Commission member Ned Holmes of Houston said the state motor fuels tax has dipped even as the population increased.Not only will funding for new construction contracts be gone in 2012, money for maintenance of existing roads will be insufficient, leaders said.
"There will be no new capacity money after about 2012," Holmes said. "None. ... So we have this growing population, we have an increasing average mile per gallon in the fleet (motor vehicles) and we have a fixed gasoline tax. There is no way that we can fund the needs that we have with this formula."
The state also gets federal money and uses bonds to fund roads, but several senators said continued reliance on debt isn't sustainable.
The 20-cent-a-gallon state gasoline tax that fuels the highway fund, meanwhile, hasn't been raised since 1991, and there appears little appetite to do so this session.
I can understand to some extent the reluctance to raise the gas tax, or ideally to index it to inflation. I think it's lousy that that's off the table, but it is the political reality, and it's why we wind up with crazy privatized toll road schemes and convoluted local option bills like this one. It's very basic - we need new roads, we need to maintain and improve the roads we already have, and we need to find the money to do these things, because the revenue source we have, which we refuse to enhance, is inadequate. It doesn't get more basic than this.
And yet the idea that the government may need more money to do something as basic and necessary as build and maintain roads is enough to get the usual crowd of taxophobes into a lather.
Opponents included Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, who voiced concern that county officials would have the opportunity "to tax their citizens and tax their citizens and tax their citizens."GOP Gov. Rick Perry, who will have the opportunity to sign or veto the bill if it passes the House, is committed to working with Carona on transit issues but "has strong concerns about the host of significant tax increases," said his spokeswoman, Allison Castle.
Hold that thought for a second while we read more about those diabolical tax increases here:
The bill, which will need a state constitutional amendment as well to go into effect, would allow county commissioners in the Metroplex, Central Texas, Bexar County and a few other spots to call elections asking voters for permission to raise one or more of six fees or taxes. This includes up to a 10-cent-a-gallon local gasoline tax.The Texas Public Policy Foundation and some other conservatives oppose the bill. Although it doesn't raise taxes, instead allowing others (well, voters really) to make that decision, an aspiring politician could argue in a future Republican primary that the Legislature was part of a multi-part scheme to raise taxes. Convoluted perhaps, but enough to have spooked Dewhurst and some other Republicans.
Okay, so before some dastardly county official gets to tax, tax, tax his citizens, first the citizens of Texas must vote to approve a constitutional amendment, which had to be approved by a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Once all that is done, the citizens who are going to be taxed, taxed, taxed would then have to vote in a special election to impose those new taxes, taxes, taxes on themselves. How much more public input is needed here?
The mindset just confounds me. I mean, either you think there's no legitimate way to impose a tax, or you think there's some magic alternate way to fund this need that somehow won't be borne by the citizens. I suppose you could favor toll roads for all new construction, financed by bonds to be paid off by toll revenues, but what about existing roads? Do the Dan Patricks and the Rick Perrys have an alternate plan, or do they think none is necessary because it'll all take care of itself? Burka and Eye on Williamson have more.
UPDATE: You may have noticed that Harris County is not part of SB855, which is a curious omission. Burka notes the reason for that:
What [Harris County officials] didn't want was to give Senator Dan Patrick a platform for opposing the bill on the Senate floor. So the decision was made that the Houston region will be included when the bill reaches the House floor, by an amendment, probably authored by Wayne Smith.
Just call him Sen. Dan "Needs to be worked around, not worked with" Patrick. Really says a lot, doesn't it?
This sounds pretty good.
New plants in heavily polluted areas like Houston's Ship Channel could have a harder time getting state permits under a clean air bill tentatively passed Wednesday by the Texas Senate.Environmental regulators would have to examine the effect of a new facility on the region's overall pollution before granting permits. They also could decide that a company has to close an older plant in the same area or otherwise offset the additional pollution caused by a new plant, said Sen. Kip Averitt, author of the bill.
"We're not just looking at the individual plant all by itself, which is what we do today. We look at all of the effects," said Averitt, R-Waco.
Averitt denied that the bill represents a "cap and trade" system for companies seeking air pollution permits from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
"We're looking at the big picture and if there is a permit that's going to create a problem somewhere, the TCEQ going to be able to say, 'Give us some offsets or a new strategy on how to reduce emissions.' " Averitt said.
The bill in question is SB16. It still has to pass on third reading before going to the House, but I'm optimistic about its chances. There hasn't been enough done recently by the Lege to improve air quality, so this is a big step forward.
The bill, which also includes rebates for buyers of hybrid vehicles, was tentatively passed on a vote of 22-9. Houston-area Republicans Joan Huffman, Mike Jackson and Dan Patrick voted against the bill.
Not that any of that is a surprise, but it's always good to be reminded who likes pollution around here. I'm glad to see, as Floor Pass makes clear, that Sen. Averitt gets it. Kudos to him for his work on this bill. Postcards has more.
Oyster offenders, long a scourge of the Texas criminal justice system, may have finally met their match in the Senate. A cautiously hopeful populace waits with, um, baited breath.
You know, I was just thinking the other day that what this legislative session was lacking was a dose of absurdity. Thank God for people like State Rep. Betty Brown.
A North Texas legislator during House testimony on voter identification legislation said Asian-descent voters should adopt names that are "easier for Americans to deal with."The comments caused the Texas Democratic Party on Wednesday to demand an apology from state Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell. But a spokesman for Brown said her comments were only an attempt to overcome problems with identifying Asian names for voting purposes.
The exchange occurred late Tuesday as the House Elections Committee heard testimony from Ramey Ko, a representative of the Organization of Chinese Americans.
Ko told the committee that people of Chinese, Japanese and Korean descent often have problems voting and other forms of identification because they may have a legal transliterated name and then a common English name that is used on their driver's license on school registrations.
Brown suggested that Asian-Americans should find a way to make their names more accessible.
"Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese -- I understand it's a rather difficult language -- do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?" Brown said.
Brown later told Ko: "Can't you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that's easier for Americans to deal with?"
Just so we're all clear here, Rep. Brown is one of the voter ID pushers, who has already tried to attach a voter ID bill as an amendment to an unrelated bill. There's no particular reason I can see to give her much benefit of the doubt. BOR has video of the exchange as well as the substantive response to this. Miya, whose name I've always found pretty easy to deal with, says "Imagine telling a Polish American that his name needs a few extra vowels, just to make it easier to pronounce". Speaking as someone whose mother's name was Abbruzza, which is a shortened from Abbruzzese, I can relate to that.
Having dealt with the serious, let me now join in with the mockery, of which there has been plenty. (If you click on only one of those links, make it the last one so you can see what your official Betty Brown American Name is. Mine is Roy "Cracker Barrel" Brown.) See, the problem with Betty's suggestion is that it didn't go far enough. Why stop at just Asian names? There's plenty of so-called American names that are too hard for people to deal with and thus get screwed up all the time. I want to see someone introduce a bill that will enforce a little standardization on names. Like "Katherine" for example - is it spelled with a C or a K? And is that second vowel supposed to be an A or an E? How do you expect poll workers to verify people's identity if we don't even know how to spell a common name like that? And that's just the beginning - don't get me started on "Kristin/Kristen", "Stuart/Stewart", "Mark/Marc", "Sara/Sarah" - the list goes on and on. Only you can save us, Betty! Assuming that's "Betty" with a Y and not "Bettie" with an IE, or - God help me - "Bettye" with a YE. You can't be too sure these days.
UPDATE: Here's a nice link roundup from the Asian American Action Fund blog.
UPDATE: Still more from Martha, Stace, and Letters from Texas.
UPDATE: Rep. Brown apologizes.
If you live in District H and have are not registered to vote, today is the last day you can do so and still be eligible to vote in that election on May 9. Go to http://www.hctax.net/voter/voterselect.asp for more information about registering to vote. If you've changed address since the last election, you can update that information online.
As a reminder, early voting begins Monday, April 27, and runs through Tuesday, May 5. You can find information about times and the three early voting locations here.
If you still need to get to know the candidates better, there will be a candidate forum on Tuesday the 14th in the Woodland Heights, at 7:30 PM at the Zion Lutheran Church on Pecore at Beauchamp. Here's a map - the street address is 3606 Beauchamp. This forum is open to the public.
And of course, you can listen to interviews I did of the candidates. Here are the links to the interview posts:
Rick Rodriguez
Yolanda Navarro Flores
Lupe Garcia
Gonzalo Camacho
Maverick Welsh
Hugo Mojica
Ed Gonzalez
The deal to jumpstart Regent Square, the idle development on Allen Parkway, was approved by City Council yesterday.
The program, approved unanimously by City Council, will reimburse the developer of Regent Square -- a 4-million-square-foot community that will abut Allen Parkway near Dunlavy and Dallas -- for public improvements the developer has agreed to make to public roadways, sidewalks and streetscapes. The money will come from tax revenue generated by the development and will be paid through the Memorial Heights Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone, or TIRZ.In exchange, Boston-based GID Urban Development Group, which had been on the brink of putting the project on hold indefinitely, has agreed to begin work on the public improvements by Oct. 1, and initiate the private aspects of the property by Oct. 1, 2010. It also will provide 150 free parking spaces and rehabilitate a nearby historically black cemetery.
White said he generally has shied away from such public-private development efforts, but would continue to review opportunities on a case-by-case basis for distressed properties, such as Sharpstown Mall and for other major projects already in the works that have been delayed or canceled amid the national economic crisis.
In this case, the overriding question was whether the city would get the same benefits without the reimbursement, White said, adding that he did not believe it would.
"I would say that this is an unusual project in its scale and scope to be started in a big urban city today when real estate markets are seizing up," he said.
Critics contend that the economic development effort is an artificial benefit to the economy, one that creates winners and losers in the marketplace.
"If these projects are stalling and developers are saying they're not going to execute them, well, that's the market and the market has slowed down," said Greg LeRoy, executive director of GoodJobsFirst, a national watchdog of public economic subsidies. LeRoy said the city could do further harm to the local real estate market by helping add capacity when there is less demand, or creating more commercial space when rents already are growing soft.
The more I think about this, the more I think that the objections raised here and in the earlier story don't add up to much. By the time the developer gets started on the project, the economy may be in far better shape and the real estate market may be back to normal. It's not like this is a speculative area, either - there's some high-end stuff immediately around it, and the location and view can't be beat. And the city will get some infrastructure improvements out of it as well - just working on the sidewalks puts this in the W column as far as I'm concerned. So while this sort of thing definitely needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, this particular case made a lot of sense to do.
Further, as Council Member Brown says in this KHOU story from Tuesday night, it's not like the city has never done this sort of thing before. The fact that it didn't even draw a token No vote from the likes of CMs Holm or Sullivan, and the fact that none of the people who could be Mayor by the time this project gets underway have raised any objections says to me this is no big deal.
Not as soon as I would have liked, since I think this saga has dragged on long enough, but at least we have a date.
Mark it in ink: The trial to assess whether Judge Sharon Keller violated her duty as head of the state's highest criminal court will begin Aug. 17 in Austin.Neither side is willing to entertain a compromise that could derail the trial, which could last a week or longer and help determine whether Keller remains presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
"There is no possibility of Judge Keller accepting anything other than a dismissal of the charges," said her lawyer, Chip Babcock.
That won't happen, said Seana Willing, executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which charged Keller with improperly closing her court to an after-hours appeal by death row inmate Michael Richard in 2007.His execution later that night made international headlines.
The commission might be willing to accept an agreement that included a public censure of Keller, Willing said. "But I don't see the judge offering to accept anything that acknowledges misconduct, and that would be the only thing we would consider," Willing said.
Well, someone's going to walk away from this unhappy. It's going to be hard, but I'm going to try to keep my expectations low.
Both sides are conducting discovery under civil court procedures while the commission searches for an Austin courtroom capable of handling the expected crowd. "At least for the first day or so, I imagine the trial will be heavily attended," Willing said.
Perhaps if we sold tickets we could pay poor indigent Keller's legal fees.
A reprimand would be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, Babcock said. A vote to remove Keller from the court, where she has sat since 1994, would be reviewed by a specially formed panel of seven appellate court judges.
I try not to constantly harp on the question of how Justice Keller would render a decision in this case if she were the one judging some other defendant, but I can't help it. One can easily imagine attorney Babcock raising all kinds of hypertechnical points in Keller's appeal if she gets an unfavorable ruling. One can also easily imagine Justice Keller sniffing with disdain at those technicalities, and finding a way to dismiss them regardless of their merits. Things sure do look different when you see them from an unfamiliar perspective, don't they? Thanks to Grits for the heads up. Stand Down Project has more.
As hot new servers have grabbed more attention, mainframes have been plugging away behind the scenes. For decades, they have been the technological backbone for banking, finance, insurance, defense, health care, education, government and other industries."The perception is we're old and gray," said Jim Porell, an engineer who works on mainframes at IBM, the only company that still makes them.
Lately, more software has been written for mainframes, and they support everything from ATMs to Web-hosting to cell phones, not exactly ancient technology.
But while mainframes are evolving to handle more applications, the number of mainframes is shrinking, said John Phelps, the lead mainframe analyst for technology research firm Gartner. IBM has lost more than 75 customers who left mainframe platforms, and it has gained about 50 new ones. Mainframes are operating more efficiently, handling more MIPS -- millions of instructions per second -- year after year.
"The actual number of mainframes has shrunk, but the capacity has gone up," he said. Better efficiency has become more important as users' sensitivity to electrical usage, both for financial and environmental reasons, has increased, he said.
I haven't used or supported PROFS in a decade, but I could still split a message file if I needed to. And don't tell anyone, but the expense statement program we had on VM back in the day was easier to use than any of the PC and web-based programs I've had to use since then. There are many things about this environment that I don't miss. But it had its good points, too.
Just a little reminder that sometimes voters are removed from the rolls erroneously.
Alegria Arce Hibbetts of Austin got a letter in late March saying that she might be dead. Or more specifically, the Texas secretary of state's Texas Election Administration Management system indicated that she was a "possible deceased voter." She had 30 days to prove otherwise, and she wasn't sure how to do that.There was nowhere to check "I'm alive," said Hibbetts, 74, who lives just north of the University of Texas. "I don't know where they got that information."
The letter was one of thousands sent to voters across Texas as part of a new effort by the secretary of state's office to remove dead people from the voter rolls. Two weeks ago, the state sent a list of possible dead voters to each county, leaving local officials to find out who was still living. Though some county officials did further research, Travis County simply mailed out letters to all 140 people on the state's list.
[...]
"There's always that balance with someone's right to vote," said Randall Dillard, director of communications for the secretary of state's office. "But our responsibility is to keep the rolls as clean as possible."
The latest problem began when the secretary of state, at the state auditor's urging, cross-checked its database of 12.8 million registered voters against a list of all Texans who have died since 1964, the farthest back that complete records go, Dillard said.
State and county offices update voter rolls daily, adding registrations and removing the ineligible, but this was the first time the state did a complete sweep for the deceased.
If a computer matched a full name, last four digits of a Social Security number and date of birth with those of someone who died, the system automatically purged that voter from the rolls, Dillard said. But if the computer could match only the last four digits of the Social Security number and date of birth, that voter was flagged as a "weak match," and the name was forwarded to the county.
The secretary of state's office sent 9,932 "weak matches" to county voter registrars. There were 140 in Travis County, including some duplicates, but only 47 of those people were actually dead, said Dolores Lopez, director of elections for Travis County.
Although the county checked the information given by the state, it verified only the criteria that created the match in the first place. Officials did not go name by name down the list because they didn't realize the electronic spreadsheet contained names for comparison, Lopez said.
Oops. Well, at least this person got her error fixed in a timely fashion. One hopes that others in her position will be as fortunate. I suppose the only thing one can add to that is this:
You're not fooling anyone, you know.
This certainly sounds like a promising idea.
Protecting the region from a hurricane's storm surge, says William Merrell of Texas A&M University at Galveston, is simple: Extend Galveston's seawall to the island's West End, build a similar structure along Bolivar Peninsula and construct massive Dutch-like floodgates at the entry to Galveston Bay.Merrell's "Ike Dike" idea, which would cost at least $2 billion not including land acquisition expenses, has gained momentum in recent weeks.
Gov. Rick Perry's post-Ike Commission for Disaster Recovery and Renewal reviewed the concept and unanimously recommended that the state fund a feasibility study to look at flood control efforts along the entire Texas coast.
"When I first heard about it, I thought it was a pretty outlandish project, but the more I've thought about it, the more I think we need to look into something like this," said Bill King, a former mayor of Kemah who is a member of the Ike commission.
"The benefits are obvious. To protect the entire Gulf Coast from a storm surge would be an incredible benefit."
[...]
The upfront cost may seem high, but storm surge damages caused by Ike along the upper Texas coast may have exceeded $10 billion, and that was for a hurricane that came in too far north to cause maximum damage to Galveston Island and heavily populated communities along western Galveston Bay.
Compared to the cost of an actual hurricane, as we have so clearly seen, this is downright cheap. Even if the $2 billion estimate is off by a factor of ten, this would be a worthwhile investment. A feasibility study would be a few million bucks, and that's a no-brainer. The only question there is what needs to be done to appropriate the money.
Environmentalists familiar with the dike proposal say the large retractable gates it would require on Galveston Bay, as well as smaller ones at San Luis Pass and the Intracoastal Waterway, would inhibit fish migration and raise a host of other potential environmental impacts.But perhaps even more significantly, said Jim Blackburn, an environmental attorney and coastal expert based in Houston, the dike proposal would give carte blanche to developers and businesses to continue building in sensitive areas around Galveston Bay. "I don't personally think this is the solution to this area's incredible vulnerability to hurricanes," Blackburn said.
"But there's a challenge to the environmental community, which may not want to see an Ike Dike, to come up with an alternative that addresses the problem."
Well, yeah. I appreciate the concern, but the potential benefit is very high, and I don't see the worries about developers carrying much weight as a counter-argument. The best bet at this point will be to make sure that future feasibility study takes these kind of costs and their mitigation into effect. More at SciGuy.
On a related note, one preseason hurricane forecast for 2009 has been ticked down a notch, from a guess of 14 named storms to 12. The quieter this season is, and the farther removed we get from Ike, the more complacent we're likely to get. If there's something that should be done, the sooner we do it, the better.
Today there will be committee hearings on various gambling-related bills. I am reprinting here an email sent by Suzii Paynter of the Christian Life Coalition, which is one of the leading organizations that are fighting the expansion of gambling in Texas, as it has a pretty good summary of what has gone on so far.
Casino HearingOn Wednesday, April 8, the House Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures will hear all the major gambling bills filed in the House this session. There are 16 gambling related bills currently on the notice of hearing which can be found here. This hearing is sure to draw the most vocal gambling proponents from all segments of the casino industry. We think it is important that the committee hear the other side of the argument as well. The CLC will be at the hearing to offer testimony. This is an entirely new committee made up of members who may not know this issue. It is important that they know people out in the state care about the issue and are paying attention. If your representative sits on this committee it would be an excellent time to let them know you oppose the expansion of gambling in Texas. A list of the committee members and their contact information can be found here.
The CLC recently completed a comprehensive newsletter outlining our most important arguments against the expansion of predatory gambling and in support of our current family-friendly economy. You can view the newsletter here (large PDF).
First Gambling Bills Voted Out of CommitteeOn the same afternoon that the House Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee announced the agenda for Wednesday's hearing, they quietly passed out two gambling expansion bills. Both bills now sit in the Calendars committee and await a chance to be considered on the House floor.
The first bill is HB 222, by Rep. Menendez (D-San Antonio). This bill would legalize poker to be played at electronic tables in certain bars, restaurants, horse and dog race tracks and on Indian reservations. The proponents claim that only simple majorities in both the House and Senate are needed to pass this bill. It is the opinion of the CLC, based on previous opinions offered by the Attorney General, that the element of chance inherent in this card game requires a constitutional amendment and the support of 2/3rds of the House and Senate. Additionally, the electronic facsimile of a game of chance makes this a Class III game as described under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). As other states have experienced, and according to IGRA, the approval of a Class III game in Texas will lead to the expansion of Native American gambling in Texas above and beyond what is contemplated in this bill and in a way that weakens the state's ability to control further casino expansion.
The second bill is HB 1474 by Rep. Geren (R- Ft. Worth). This bill is meant to be a "clean up" bill to standardize and improve the regulation of Bingo in Texas. However, the bill also greatly increases the number and type of organizations that are eligible to receive a bingo license. The CLC is concerned that bingo in this state is moving far beyond the original public understanding of the game and that the charitable purpose is being watered down. Specifically, during the legislative interim period after last session, the lottery commission approved new bingo games which would allow versions of electronic pull tab bingo as well as a type of Keno. We are concerned that these new games could lead to a rapid expansion of electronic casino-style games. This threat is even more possible with the broadening of organizations eligible to apply for a license stated in HB 1474.The list of members on the Calendars Committee can be found here. If your representative is member of this committee, let them know that the best way to defeat these bills is to never allow a vote on the House floor.
Indian Gambling Bills Get HearingOn Monday, March 30, two Native-American casino bills by Rep. Chavez (D-El Paso) were heard in committee. The first bill, HB 1308 was heard in the subcommittee on Criminal Procedure of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee.
The CLC testified in opposition to this bill. HB 1308 would give a defense to prosecution for Indian tribes that conduct otherwise illegal casino gambling operations. The bill is the exact same piece of legislation which failed to pass the House last session. According to Rep. Chavez and other supporters, the bill would simply allow two tribes, the Tigua of El Paso and the Alabama-Coushatta of Livingston to reopen illegal casinos that were shut down several years ago. While sympathetic to the desperate conditions on these two reservations, the Christian Life Commission opposes this piece of legislation because we believe that the consequences of passage may be far more expansive than what proponents are indicating.
HB 1308 does not improve the legal standing of gambling by the Texas tribes bound by the Restoration Act. The state has never used criminal charges to shut down illegal Native-American casinos. The state has the right to sue the tribe in federal court and seek injunctive relief. This is how the casinos were closed in the past and the bill cannot prevent the state from closing any casino opened by the Tigua or Alabama-Coushatta. The gambling activity the tribes seek to conduct is not just an illegal violation of the penal code that this bill amends; it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL according to the Texas Constitution. A statute passed by a simple legislative majority cannot trump the state constitution. While it may preclude criminal penalties the state may still seek to have any operating casino shut down in federal civil court. The bill is an attempt to expand gambling by a simple majority vote in the legislature rather than the two-thirds majority needed for a constitutional amendment. The end result of this bill would likely be more costly litigation on the part of the state in federal court.
Additionally, the vague language in the bill would actually open a legal loophole to Native-American tribes that are 1) named in the list of tribes referenced in the bill, 2) which have historic, recognized land ties to Texas and 3) are not bound by the Restoration Act. The list of tribes referenced in the bill includes over 300 tribes from across the country, several of whom have entered into agreements with state agencies acknowledging "historic property" in Texas. There are currently letters of intent to petition for recognition on file with the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 10 tribes seeking recognition in Texas.
The members of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee should hear from those opposed to this bill so that it is defeated in committee. A link to the committee and their contact info can be found here.
That afternoon, the House Committee on Border and Intergovernmental Affairs heard testimony on HJR 108. This Joint Resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to allow the Tigua tribe of El Paso to operate a full blown, Las Vegas style casino. The CLC testified in opposition to this bill as well. Any constitutional amendment which would allow Class III gambling as defined under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) would be a "trigger" for further Native-American casinos beyond what is authorized in this resolution. It is impossible to authorize gambling for only one tribe without affecting the rights of other tribes in this state. As has been the case in other states, once the Class III threshold is crossed, the state loses much of the ability to control casino expansion since many of the decisions will be made on the federal level.
A link to the members of the Border and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee can be found here.A news report of these two hearings can be found here.
To learn more about HB 1308 and the history of Native-American gambling in Texas see here (PDF).
Couple things. First, as you know, I support HB222. Of all the various gambling expansion options I've seen, allowing for poker seems to me to be the most sensible and least potentially harmful. Plus, as a bridge player who has had the chance to play for money legally, I think poker is a legitimate game of skill and should be treated as such. In fact, poker players in Pennsylvania and South Carolina recently won court rulings that agreed poker is a game of skill. As such, it's not clear to me that the AG's opinion would agree with the CLC about the inherent level of chance here. Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer, and Lord only knows what Greg Abbott will do. The point is that recent legal history is on the poker players' side. I welcome any feedback on that question, and on the other legal points raised, by anyone who has more expertise on the topic.
Second, you can't talk about the Tigua and Alabama-Coushatta tribes and the litigation over their past attempts to open casinos without noting that a lot of the opposition to them has come from out of state Indian tribes and casinos, who have an obvious interest in minimizing their competition, and that along the way some really sleazy double-dealing was done by former Christian Coalition honcho Ralph Reed and Tom DeLay's felonious friend Jack Abramoff. Here's some previous blogging on the subject, plus a couple of corrected links to Observer articles to give you the background.
Finally, just to reiterate, outside of HB222, I am officially agnostic on the subject of expanded gambling in Texas. I have plenty of issues with it, and I may wind up voting against any future ballot propositions to allow for more gambling, but I am not comfortable being opposed to the idea. I thought this email was informative and worth highlighting, but please don't take that as an endorsement, because it's not intended as one.
Here's another update from the Handmade Toy Alliance, in the form of a letter to the President on the current state of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and the need for a technical amendment to it for small businesses. It was written by my cousin Jill, who has been working hard to get the needed changes made to the law so she and many like her can continue to stay in business. Again, it looks like they've got support in Congress for their efforts, but there's a lot to be done, and there's not a lot of time. Check it out, and get involved.
Who says Harris County is flat? Not County Commissioner Steve Radack, who is building a hill in Hockley for soap box derby enthusiasts.
It is a vision seven years in the making for Radack, who predicts the hill will draw hundreds of derby enthusiasts from around the region and across the country, along with runners, hikers and possibly even skateboarders. Built using dirt excavated to create a chain of lakes at Katy's Paul D. Rushing Park, the 50-foot incline will allow the motorless cars to zip downward with the aid of gravity at speeds approaching 35 mph.The project's estimated price tag has grown from $300,000 to more than $2 million as the plans became more elaborate, including adding an amphitheater on the hillside for concerts and community events. Although the county is facing a budget crunch that has forced some departments to cut spending by millions of dollars, Radack said parks are an ideal investment in a time of economic uncertainty.
"When you think about building something that thousands of families will come to, to provide their kids with space to play and exercise, I mean, that's a big thing we're in business to do," Radack said. "And that's why I continue to build parks."
It is hard to pinpoint exactly how much the county has spent on the hill since the main $6.1 million contract in 2007 covered both excavating the dirt to create the lakes and trucking it 12 miles to build the hill. Radack said most of the money was spent on the lake excavation, but he did not have an exact tally. The hill was finished about a year ago and has been allowed to rest so the dirt can settle and stabilize.
Well, at least now I have a better understanding of why Radack cares so much about how long it takes to drive between Hockley and Houston.
We're Number 22! Um, out of 25, which is to say out of the 25 largest cities in America. On the plus side, that's two places higher than Dallas. And we were the best at eating leftovers, for which I personally will claim a lot of credit. So there you have it.
Floor Pass has the bad news.
The Texas Workforce Commission released its latest projection for the unemployment insurance trust fund balance, and the news is even worse than last month's.TWC estimates the fund's balance will have plummeted to just $19 million by October 1 - that's $840 million below the trust fund's legal minimum balance of $858. Last month, the TWC projected an $813 million deficit.
[...]
This is the third consecutive month where TWC has projected the fund to be worse off than the previous month's estimate. High numbers of layoffs have meant the fund is paying out much more in benefits than usual. To put it in perspective, in the last week of March 2008 TWC paid 95,000 claims to the tune of $27 million in benefits. In the last week of March 2009, the fund paid 250,000 claims and $74 million in benefits - that's about a 275 percent increase in benefits payouts from the previous year.
TWC's 2009 Trust Fund Projections
January projection: $447 million below the floor
February projection: $750 million below the floor
March projection: $813 million below the floor
April projection: $840 million below the floor
At this rate, unemployed Texans will have to start paying the state instead of vice versa. Tell me again why some people think we shouldn't take the federal stimulus money for unemployment insurance? And seriously, Arthur Laffer? For real? I can't think of a better argument for taking the stimulus money than the fact that Laffer and Talmadge Heflin say we shouldn't do it. Take it away, Ed:
Ed Sills, spokesman for the state AFL-CIO, urged the state to take the federal unemployment benefits money so it can soften next year's employer tax increase and help more jobless Texans.Noting that Laffer in 2006 predicted there wouldn't be a recession, Sills said, "Citing Laffer for advice on how to run the Texas economy is like relying on candy manufacturers to set dental policy."
Yeah. EoW has more.
The House Appropriations Committee takes care of business.
House budget writers today backed a $178.4 billion, two-year state budget that would give a $1,000 bonus to state government employees [who make less than $100,000 a year], retired teachers and retired state employees.[...]
It would give more to college grants than the Senate budget proposal approved last week. Unlike the Senate measure, it also would definitively provide for funding an expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program if separate legislation passes (the Senate would give a CHIP expansion a chance at funding).
At the same time, the House committee proposal is nearly $4 billion less than the $182.2 billion Senate measure.
Among key differences, the House measure gives about $2 billion less for road bonds and less for cancer bonds, said Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie. It also has a far lower estimate for Medicaid costs and caseloads, making up the bulk of the difference.
The House bill also would put tighter strings on trust funds overseen by Gov. Rick Perry, who stirred Pitts' ire when he engineered a $50 million transfer from the enterprise fund to the emerging technology fund for a Texas A&M University System biotecnology center.
As you know, I thought the Senate budget wasn't too bad, certainly a lot better than I thought it would be coming into the session. From what I see here, the House budget improves on it, though I'm leery of the lower cost estimate for Medicaid. Still, more for CHIP and tighter controls on Governor Perry's slush fund - what's not to like about those things?
Floor Pass, which says the whole House will debate the budget bill on April 17, has more.
The House's version includes $11 billion in federal stimulus funds. But wait! Wasn't Texas supposed to get, like, $16 billion? Calm down there, pardner. Some of the stimulus funds flow directly from the feds for local appropriation and some of the stimulus funds have been appropriated to the 2008 - 09 biennium, as some of the money will already have been spent by the end of this year.
More details on the budget will be forthcoming soon. Is it possible that this won't represent the biggest battle of the session? I'm not sure what that would say about this session if it turns out to be the case. Postcards has more.
UPDATE: BOR says the budget process is proceeding in at least as timely a manner as it did in 2007, but it could still get derailed.
Last week, I presented data on the 2008 election results by City Council district and by city of Houston/not City of Houston. I said at the time that the measurement was a bit rough because precinct boundaries do not conform to City of Houston boundaries. After the post was published, I heard from Eric Ingenthron, who has been crunching some numbers for the Karen Derr campaign, and he was able to provide me some more granular data about individual precincts and the number of registrants in each that have the "city of Houston" designation on them. I then used his data to refine my results, and this is what I came up with.
District Obama Noriega Garcia Judicials
============================================
Houston 61.0 61.8 65.9 60.9
Harris 39.5 40.5 45.7 39.8
A 45.4 46.6 52.9 45.2
B 91.0 91.6 92.9 91.7
C 60.6 59.9 64.5 58.5
D 88.9 87.1 88.7 86.9
E 40.8 42.4 47.4 40.9
F 63.7 65.2 68.8 65.0
G 42.2 40.6 45.6 39.2
H 68.8 72.5 77.7 70.9
I 72.6 79.0 81.6 76.5
The first thing to note is that by getting better information about the Houston/not Houston distinction, I was able to shift about 100,000 votes that I had been counting as Houston out of that bucket and into the not-Houston bucket. Now instead of counting for about 57% of the total vote, the city of Houston now accounts for about 52% of the total, which is a much more accurate representation of the city to county population ratio. That's also the reason why the Democrats' share of the vote in each region went up, as the votes in question were less Democratic overall than the city of Houston share, but more so than the non-Houston share.
The biggest differences in the individual Council districts were in A, which shifted about six points in the Dems' favor, and B, which moved about four points in that direction. District D also became a bit bluer, by about a point. That made District A much closer to parity, with Adrian Garcia carrying the district, and confirmed my initial suspicion, which I'd thought had been rebutted, that it is winnable this year by a Democrat. District E became about a point less Democratic, District G a tenth of a point less so; they were the only districts to move away from the Dems in this recalculation. All other districts remained about the same.
Anyway, that's the revised data. Greg, who was correct to suspect that such a refinement would move the needle about two points overall inside Houston towards the Dems, has more.
House Elections Committee Chair Todd Smith is full of ennui at how things have gone so far.
Throughout today's proceedings, Chairman Todd Smith, R-Bedford, has repeatedly insisted that he is "unimpressed," and even on one occasion, "fabulously unimpressed," with both sides of the debate.[...]
"Both sides are guilty of speculating without any substantiating evidence that this has any impact on turnout at all one way or the other," Smith said.
Upon which side Smith believes the burden of proof falls has yet to be established, though past statements indicate that it might not matter.
Regardless, the show Smith is currently running on the House side is markedly different from the Senate's handling of Voter ID, which left many witnesses unable to testify. The decision to break the testimony up into two days will undoubtedly allow more to have their voices heard. The discussion also seems to have taken on a more productive tone.
"It is encouraging that, in the House, some members of both parties seem interested in considering reforms targeted at access and turnout in addition to security," says Dustin Rynders of Advocacy, Inc., which advocates for the legal rights of disabled Texans. "This more comprehensive approach was completely absent in the Senate debate."
Well, I can think of a way in which we could have avoided boring Rep. Smith. But here we are having the hearing anyway.
According to RG Ratcliffe, it'll be a little while before any bills come to the floor.
Elections Chairman Todd Smith, R-Euless, said he does not expect his committee to vote on the bill until sometime in the next week or two.[...]
Smith said he hopes to add language to the bill that would delay implementation for two years to educate the public about the need to have identification to vote. He said that change might win him enough votes to get this bill out of the House.
That's as may be, but it'll take a lot more than that to keep said bill from being harmful. I'll say it again, if anyone who's pushing this is serious about wanting to mitigate the effects, including same-day registrations in the final bill would be a big step in the right direction.
I see in that story that one of the witnesses testifying was Diane Trautman, who made an unsuccessful attempt to oust Paul Bettencourt last year as Tax Assessor before he decided to traipse off to greener pastures. She sent me a copy of her testimony, which I've posted as a Google document. I'm glad to see her hit back at Bettencourt, who was a tireless promoter of voter fraud myths, for his office's shamefully sloppy handling of voter registrations last year. Check it out.
Today is the day for public testimony, so anyone who gave up before the Senate allnighter got around to that has a second chance to speak up. And believe it or not, there are other committee hearings going on in this shortened week, including one by Appropriations on the Senate budget bill.
Nice profile of State Sen. Rodney Ellis, which talks about his propensity for introducing long-shot bills, and his persistence in getting some of them passed over the course of multiple sessions. This bit summarizes it well:
"Occasionally, Senator Ellis will pick an issue whose time has not yet come, but that's the legislative process, in that sometimes it takes a little time so we can get a consensus and a majority," said Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican, who calls Ellis one of the state's "brightest, most charismatic senators."
The article mentions his bills to have Texas adopt California's emissions standards for automobiles, something he first introduced in 1991. I'd cite his work on innocence matters as well, which are getting a higher profile this session thanks to the large and increasing number of people who can speak to it from their personal experience. It's good to have some legislators focus on the big picture issues, and Sen. Rodney Ellis does a good job of that.
In honor of the start of a new baseball season, the Texas Progressive Alliance suggests you read this week's blog roundup with a beer and a bag of peanuts. Play ball!
Neil at Texas Liberal writes about a Voting Rights Case out of the Austin area Austin Area Voting Rights Case Headed To Supreme Court/Idea For Lawsuit Against Democratic Party and suggests another idea for a voting rights suit.
Somewhat quietly, a bill that would amend Texas' unemployment insurance laws in a way that would make them compliant with the requirements to get federal stimulus dollars passed out of a Senate committee. Off the Kuff takes a look.
Justin at AAA-Fund Blog writes about the Pew study indicating Asian American students in Fort Bend and Pasadena ISDs face some of the highest segregation rates in the nation.
At McBlogger, we take a look at Ag Commissioner Todd Staples' efforts to make people sick. Nice work, Todd!
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is thoroughly disgusted with the crony-loving Texas Supreme Court which is hereby officially renamed the Texas Cronies' Protection Agency. Workers and beware!
Labor gets its own television talk show, as MSNBC prepares to introduce Ed Schultz as part of its evening progressive lineup.
WCNews at Eye On Williamson has a round up of The state of the stimulus money in Texas.
WhosPlayin's MexicoBob took time to poke fun at the Republican Tax Day Tea Parties, wondering what other necessary evils that Republicans might protest next.
BossKitty at TruthHugger was struck by a single line on the news describing an Austin man turned away from medical care for lack of insurance, then going on a violent rampage, No Insurance, Meds Denied, Tate Mayhem and Perryman Murder - Op Ed. On a lighter note, it is amusing to watch opponents to gay marriage wring their hands in despair every time a court reverses the ban, Gay Marriage Apocalypse - Really Now
Over at TexasKaos Libby Shaw updates us on Houston KBR corporation's onging legal problems. It seems they got paid and paid and paid to create electrical death traps for our troops. As one civilan expert put it , " It was horrible - some of the worst electrical work I have ever seen. Read the rest here: Lawsuit Claims KBR Responsible for Deaths of US Troops in Iraq.
John Coby at Democrats will save Bob Perry's Commission?
Vince at Capitol Annex points out that Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Tyler) has decided that the Iowa Supreme Court gay marriage decision signals the end of American civilization.
So as we know, today is expert testimony day for the voter ID hearings in the House. It's still going on as I type this, and is expected to last till about midnight. Vince is liveblogging, Rep. Pena has a report, and the Lone Star Project takes a swipe at Elections Committee Chair Rep. Todd Smith for "bait and switch" tactics.
So remember the nuns in Indiana from last year who were turned away from the ballot box because they didn't have drivers' licenses? Well, among the witnesses testifying today was Indiana's Secretary of State. According to Glenn Smith, that was their own damn fault:
Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita also blamed the nuns for the voting debacle that embarrassed Indiana backers of the new identification restrictions. "Those nuns weren't disenfranchised, they just didn't want to follow the law."Oh, I bet these guys wouldn't say that to the faces of these spiritual leaders.Rulers, anyone? Back of the knuckles? Ring a bell?
Yeah, we all know what a bunch of miscreants those elderly nuns can be. Gotta show 'em who's boss.
All I can say is if that's how today has gone, tomorrow will be even more fun.
Sorry, but this sounds like carping to me.
Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia has nearly tripled the number of investigators assigned to an expanded Office of Inspector General to handle what he described as a "tremendous" backlog of unresolved complaints against jailers and deputies stretching back two years.The reorganization has drawn mixed reviews. The head of the main deputies' union approves of the idea, but some rank-and-file officers are leery.
Garcia said the change is needed to reduce the backlog of 160 pending investigations he inherited when he took office in January. He said 30 of those cases since have been closed.
The sheriff also said the reorganization was aimed in part at assuring U.S. Department of Justice investigators reviewing the high number of deaths in county jails that the department is willing to police its own.
"Part of what caused the DOJ complaint was there appeared to be no attention given to issues that led to the confrontation between the public, the inmates and the employees," Garcia said. "We want to make sure people understand we are working hard to protect the public."
[...]
Commissioner Steve Radack complained the move will reduce public safety.
"I have a huge problem with that. If you're going to arbitrarily say this person used to ride in a patrol car and now you put them inside the building in internal affairs, this does not meet muster with me," said Radack, a former police officer and county constable. "This is the same guy who told you he's going to put more boots on the ground, but what they're doing is changing the boots and changing them into wingtips."
[...]
Richard Newby, president of the Harris County Deputies Organization, said it was unfair to employees to endure long waits while complaints are investigated.
"Something had to be done, and there are times you have to bite the bullet and do it," he said. "We transferred bodies to take care of the problem.
"This is at the expense of all the departments -- detention, patrol, the detective bureau -- everybody got hit a little bit."
Newby is right and Radack is wrong. This is a priority, and it's one that cannot be met by hiring a bunch of new deputies to handle it. The OIG hasn't been in existence for long, and hasn't been staffed to investigate these long-standing problems. It is a matter of public safety - last I checked, the inmates in the jail were still members of the public, and they have a right to non-deadly living conditions. And frankly, this is one of the messes created by his predecessor that Garcia was elected to clean up. If Steve Radack has a problem with that, the person he should be complaining to is Tommy Thomas. Stace has more.
And with the announcement of early voting locations and times, and the realization that early voting is three weeks away, I bring you the last of my interviews with candidates in the District H special election. Today's subject is Ed Gonzalez, who is a Sergeant in the Homicide Division of HPD and was a volunteer Community Liaison for former Council Member Adrian Garcia. He lives in Lindale, and my interview with Ed Gonzalez is here, as always in MP3 format.
PREVIOUSLY:
Rick Rodriguez
Yolanda Navarro Flores
Lupe Garcia
Gonzalo Camacho
Maverick Welsh
Hugo Mojica
Two days' worth of hearings on the single most important issue facing Texas today. Here's the schedule for today - unclear when it will start, probably sometime after lunch. Invited testimony only today, meaning all the usual charlatans and hoaxsters who claim in-person fraud is rampant will have yet another chance to spew their falsehoods. Public testimony is tomorrow. After that, unless something unexpected happens, I presume SB362, possibly amended and possibly not, and perhaps some other, similar bills will be sent to the House floor for an eventual vote. Stay tuned.
Former HCC Trustee Herman Litt has been a potential candidate for City Council this year for some time. Last night, in an email to Carl Whitmarsh's list, he made his official announcement:
I am announcing my decision to run for City Council At-Large Position 1 and hope that you will help let everyone know of my plans.I am a native Houstonian with a masters degree in psychology and rehabilitation counseling. My career has included developing and managing programs for the physically disabled, drug and alcohol abuse, and mental health experiences in business development and hospital based administration. I directed the efforts of business and industry and other area agencies in the Job Fair for the Handicapped.
Elected to the Houston Community College Board in 1999, I was fortunate to serve for six years and was elected Chairman of the Board in 2004. Achievements included economic and community development projects, the first Early College/High School collaboration with the Houston Independent School District, adopting LEED's standards for new building projects, and reaching out to underserved communities to increase enrollment, and calling for a performance audit by the State Comptroller that identified about $31 million in projected saving for tax payers over a five year period.
More recently I have served several years as a board member & president of Southwest Houston 2000, a coalition of civic groups and community organizations working and dedicated to improving the quality of life through economic development, crime prevention, and safety and security in the Fondren Southwest area of Houston.
For the past two years I have chaired the annual Johnson-Rayburn-Richards Dinner, helping raise funds for the Democratic Party and helping elect our Democratic office holders in the county elections. Last year's Dinner was the most successful ever, having the highest attendance in history (1,110).
I believe there are some key issues which are very important to the city of Houston and will be an integral part of my campaign. Crime Prevention and safe neighborhoods are a must if we are to progress as a city and ensure that our residents are safe.
Economic development & jobs is another issue which has become even more significant as we face our current economic crisis. We must encourage increased development in the city which will lead to more badly needed revenue for the city budget and increase job opportunities for our residents.
I am a proponent of a regional approach to government, where the city, county and other government entities come together to collaborate on funding solutions to problems such as crime, mobility, economic development, etc. I have always been committed to other quality of life issues such as clean air and beautification of our city.
Houston is one of the great cities of America. I want to serve on City Council to help find ways to make it even better, a place where all of its residents will be able to take part in the vast array of opportunities that exist here.
Litt joins Karen Derr and Steve Costello in seeking this seat. He last ran for District C in 2005, finishing just out of the money. Litt's email included a fair number of people who will be supporting him, so I think he'll be a strong contender for this seat.
I suppose it was to be expected that the recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling that struck down the state's law banning gay marriage would drive certain people to even greater heights of absurdity. I still confess to being taken aback at idiots like Rep. Louie Gohmert, whose worldview is so bizarre to me that I'm not sure I can see a path to a starting point of comprehension of it. I don't know that there's anything that really can be said to this, so just click over and see for yourself.
I don't suppose it really matters what part of town Mayors and Mayor wannabees live in. What does matter is how they want to approach questions of what different parts of town want and need.
Candidate and Councilman Peter Brown, an urban planner and architect, lives in the close-in Museum District and said he helped raise his now-grown family in the Briargrove neighborhoods outside Loop 610. He has said the city needs to help develop commercial and residential centers along rail lines, compete with surrounding cities such as Pearland for business development, and "stop the exodus to the suburbs."But Brown also said he is attuned to the suburbs as someone who designed homes and buildings in dozens of suburban neighborhoods and who is jealous of the town center projects in Sugar Land and "planned communities" such as The Woodlands.
The Asiatown strip along western Bellaire Boulevard is an example of a dynamic neighborhood that sorely needs planning and services, Brown said, as do older neighborhoods that need more police protection and better infrastructure.
"It's pretty chaotic, and there's no real pedestrian environment," the councilman said. "We need a real town center out there" and, eventually, light rail service.
Lawyer Gene Locke, who lives in the Riverside area west of the University of Houston main campus, oversaw the city's legal staff and provided advice to agencies that built sports stadiums, the light rail system and parts of the Port of Houston.
He said the art of meeting the needs of a far-flung city involves knowing which problems are uniform -- such as street flooding, crime and a lack of bus shelters -- and which are particular to certain neighborhoods.
The latter, Locke said, includes a lack of parks and libraries in some areas and a lack of suitable housing in others.
"There are a lot of areas of Houston that feel like they are being underserved," Locke said, "and the task of the next mayor is to make sure services are effective and consistent."
[...]
Controller Annise Parker lives in a 105-year-old home that is a city-designated landmark and said she grew up in Spring Branch when it was a semi-rural northwestern reach of Houston. She said she has also lived in Oak Forest and the city of Bellaire.
Like Locke, Parker said her goal as mayor would be to focus on the economic and city service needs of the overall city while catering to other, more diverse needs at the neighborhood level. As a council member, Parker said, she helped craft the ordinance that provides different building codes for different parts of the city. Parker said she lives in the inner part of Montrose partly to save time commuting to work.
"Time spent in traffic weighs very heavily on folks who live in the suburbs, and we have a responsibility to respond to them," she said.
All of this sounds fine to me. I think what I really like about it is that after eight or so years lately of campaigns at the state and national level being about idealizing one group of people while demonizing another - you know, things like "real America" versus whichever group was being used as the poster children for not-real America - it looks like the contenders in this race agree that we're all "real Houston". I figure I may as well enjoy that now while I can, because it won't be like that in the 2010 campaigns.
Play ball!
I do not have, nor do I ever intend to have, a man cave. Yet I somehow remain confident in my own masculinity.
If you're going to make a plea for sympathy, it helps to actually be a sympathetic figure.
I don't consider "The Lincoln Lawyer" to be Michael Connelly's best work - actually, I think it's one of his lesser works, though that still makes it better than most other mystery novels - but it is one of his more filmable works. Given that, I feel no need to be alarmed at the potential casting of the lead character.
Yeah, I have no words, either.
Dear Microsoft: If you're going to run an ad that portrays a "real" person doing "real" things, it looks bad if that person turns out to be an actor who isn't allowed to talk to anyone about that "real" experience. I'm just sayin'.
Yeah, like you've never wanted to do this.
Nothing like economic hard times to cure a resort town of its spring break phobia.
What's that you say? The Social Security Trust Fund is in trouble? If only we'd put all of that money into private accounts when we had the chance!
Wait, now you're telling me that most celebrity Twitter feeds are actually ghost tweeted? My world is falling apart! Thank $deity for The Real Shaq.
When wingnuts collide. There's not enough popcorn in the world to fully appreciate that.
Man coughs up a nail that was stuck in his nose for 30 years. Man, I hate it when that happens.
What's up with all this self-plagiarism in the comics pages these days?
Where budget projections and "Star Trek" intersect. Boldly, of course.
On average, I post between four and six items a day, often a bit less on weekends. That puts me right in the Jim Henley sweet spot for blog production volume. I look forward to being added to your blogroll, Jim.
The coalition of the wild-eyed.
New frontiers in sore loserdom. I keep thinking they can't top themselves, and they keep proving me wrong.
Republicans are mad about the census choice because his ability to do his job correctly might benefit Democrats. Yeah, that pretty much is the last eight years in a nutshell.
How is it possible that I wasn't informed about National Cleavage Day? Thank God The Bloggess was on top of things.
What 8 classic TV shows were almost called. Via McGuff.
The dark side of trying to expand your preschooler's vocabulary.
Early voting for the District H special election begins three weeks from tomorrow, on Monday, April 27. The Harris County Clerk has posted the early voting schedule and locations (PDF) for this election. Briefly summarized, it is as follows:
For the week of Monday, April 27 to Friday, May 1: 8 AM to 5 PM
For Saturday, May 2: 7 AM to 7 PM
For Sunday, May 3: 1 PM to 6 PM
For Monday, May 4 and Tuesday, May 5: 7 AM to 7 PM
There are three locations:
The Harris County Administrative Building, 1001 Preston St downtown, first floor.
Moody Park Recreation Center, 3725 Fulton Street, which I believe is in Lindale.
Ripley House Neighborhood Center, 4410 Navigation Blvd, in the East End.
Martha notes that all three of these locations are inside the Loop and east of I-45, whereas a significant portion of District H is north of the Loop and/or west of I-45, and that this seems like a formula for low turnout. I can't dispute her argument, but the fact is that these are the only early voting locations within District H that we've got. Inside 610 and west of I-45, the only location that's not by the South Loop is the Metro Multi-Purpose Center on West Gray, which is in District D. North of 610 and inside Beltway 8 there ain't much - the two closest locations are Acres Homes and the Hardy Senior Center, both of which appear to be in District B. Look at the early voting map from November (PDF) and see for yourself. I don't know what you can do about this except push for more early voting locations overall.
Anyway. Moody Park is reasonably convenient to me, and I've voted there once or twice before, so it'll be where I go. Make your plans now and be ready to vote when the polls open.
That makes two, and counting.
Houston won a major victory Thursday in its efforts to stamp out sex-related businesses that operate near neighborhoods or turn a blind eye to criminal activity in their facilities.The city won a unanimous verdict against the El Rondo Motor Lodge, at 8016 Livingston in Sunnyside, in its first attempt to confront in court what Mayor Bill White has called "hot sheet" motels. Police and nearby residents testified throughout the trial, which began Monday, that the hotel was a haven for prostitution, one where condoms were sold at check-in and rooms rented by the hour.
"I am so happy, I don't know what to do," said James Nash, pastor of the St. Paul Baptist Church, three blocks from the hotel. "This thing has been a problem for years, one I had approached the owners about myself....We don't want to put people out of business, but we don't want this kind of business in our community."
I have my qualms about the city's war on strip clubs, but they don't apply to this. The more the city's focus is on this kind of business, the better as far as I'm concerned. Houston Politics and Miya have more.
Meet the first woman to play professional baseball in Japan.
Eri Yoshida, a 17-year-old who throws a sidearm knuckleball, took the mound in the ninth inning of Kobe 9 Cruise's 5-0 win over the Osaka Gold Villicanes in the newly-formed Kansai Independent League.She walked the first batter leading off the inning on four pitches and allowed a stolen base before striking out the next batter swinging at Osaka Dome. She was then replaced after facing just two batters.
The 5-feet, 114-pound Yoshida is hoping to stick with the Kobe team. Friday's performance was far from conclusive but at least she has the first strikeout of her career.
I don't think I've ever heard of someone throwing a sidearm knuckleball before. David Pinto, from whom I got the link, has some video there so you can see what that looks like for yourself. Good luck, Eri Yoshida.
I haven't really followed the anti-trans fat bill very closely, but if it's worth a front page headline, it's worth a mention here.
Lawmakers in coming weeks will consider bills by Houston state Rep. Carol Alvarado and state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, that would outlaw restaurant use of certain oils, shortenings and margarines by September 2011.The oils, which have been treated with hydrogen at high heat to prolong shelf life, were touted as healthful alternatives to butter until doctors found they contributed to cardiovascular and other diseases.
"Texans want to make healthy choices," Alvarado said Friday. "This has nothing to do with taste. Our restaurants cook with trans fat-free oils, and it doesn't compromise the flavor at all."
Glen Garey, general counsel for the 5,000-member Texas Restaurant Association, said his organization "stands arm in arm" with Alvarado on the issue, especially since the bill was altered in committee to allow restaurants more time to comply.
If the bill becomes law, Texas would join California and New York City in banning the restaurant use of oils containing artificial trans fats.
Alvarado's bill calls for eliminating use of such oils at restaurant chains with 15 or more outlets in Texas by September 2010. The ban would apply to all restaurants by September 2011. Penalties for violations have yet to be determined.
Rep. Alvarado's bill is HB1523. I'm moderately surprised that there's no real opposition to this; usually this sort of thing kicks up a big fuss. I guess this is sufficiently mainstream now that a measure like this is seen as inevitable.
One objection I have seen to this comes from EdT on Twitter, in reply to an agreeing Alison Cook, who notes that there's "MUCH more trans fats in the stuff on the grocery store shelves." I'd say that's true, but it's also a federal matter. Restaurants are something the Lege can regulate, and so here we are.
HB1523 hasn't had its committee hearing yet, and with a bit more than 8 weeks left in the session it's hard to say what its prospects are, even with the restauranteurs in its corner. On a related note, Rep. Alvarado has also filed HB1522, which would require chain restaurants to disclose their nutrition information. Given that the best source for this information nowadays is Ken Hoffman's Drive Thru Gourmet column, I'd say that bill might have the bigger effect.
Governor Perry writes a letter to the Department of Homeland Security.
Perry asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano this week to take a series of steps to improve information-sharing between federal, state and local law enforcement. The Homeland Security-related issues "seriously affect public safety in Texas," Perry wrote earlier this week in a letter to Napolitano.A spokeswoman for Napolitano, Sara Kuban, said Napolitano would respond directly to Perry and declined to comment on the specific issues raised in the letter.
The governor's requests include:
- Giving all Texas jails access to a database that automatically checks suspects' immigration history. So far, 19 of the 252 jails in the state with electronic fingerprint booking participate in the program, including the Harris County Sheriff's Office and Houston Police Department.
Those 19 jails have checked 37,000 people through the database since last fall, and have identified 8,844 with fingerprints on file with immigration officials, according to Perry's letter.
Perry specifically cited the case of Wilfido Alfaro, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who avoided deportation after multiple arrests in Texas and last month shot and critically wounded a Houston Police officer.
- Requiring ICE officials to notify the state when they deport a foreign national with a Texas driver's license, which would close a gap that has allowed illegal immigrants to keep valid state identification. For example, according to local investigators, Alfaro had a Texas driver's license, even though an immigration judge ordered him to leave the country in 2001.
- Keeping illegal immigrants convicted of crimes in federal custody until their deportation. Perry cited a recent case involving two Cubans convicted of robbery in Florida and dropped by immigration officials at a bus stop in Willacy, Texas, after being released from custody.
Based on a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, immigration officials have about six months to deport or release immigrants after their immigration case is decided. To hold someone longer, the federal government must show that a foreign government will issue the detainee travel documents in the "reasonably foreseeable future" or certify that the person meets stringent criteria to be classified as a danger to society or national interest.In cases involving immigrants from countries like Cuba, which lacks a repatriation treaty with the U.S., the detainees routinely are released from immigration custody within six months because they cannot be deported.
Other than number three, which raises some Constitutional issues and really needs to be resolved by the US growing up and re-engaging with Cuba, these strike me as perfectly reasonable requests. There's a big difference between verifying the immigration status of someone who's already been arrested for something, and verifying the immigration status of someone who's been pulled over or stopped on the street by the cops for whatever arbitrary reason. Maybe there's something here I'm not seeing, but offhand I don't have any objections to the first two items.
The earlier story about DA Pat Lykos' "no plea bargains unless you confess your immigration status to us" proposal is a different kettle of fish. Mark Bennett gets into some of the problems with this idea, which he also sums up in a simple question, but it's John Nova Lomax with a truly impressive deconstruction of the Lykos Plan. I can't really add anything to what he wrote, so go check it out for yourself.
This is a good first step.
Saying they want to be more transparent, Houston Independent School District trustees agreed Thursday to broadcast their once-monthly general meetings on the district's cable access station, which runs 24 hours a day.Trustees, though, are refusing for now to broadcast their less formal public meetings, where much of the debate and discussion -- and even some votes -- take place.
"If we televise everything we do as board members, then we would crowd out other programming," Trustee Harvin Moore said. "Where would we stop? We have workshops. We have committee meetings. You have to draw a line at some point."
Trustees also decided against airing the portion of their general meetings when citizens can address the board about any topic. Some trustees said they worried about parents violating children's privacy.
HISD, which televised its meetings decades ago, now plans to take a more restrictive approach than some other local governments. The Houston City Council, for example, airs its general meetings, plus public comment periods and some committee meetings.
The Cypress-Fairbanks school board has been televising its meetings for more than a decade. Like HISD, trustees there have one meeting to discuss agenda items in detail, followed by a meeting where they cast votes.
Cy-Fair also has been posting videos of board meetings on the school district's Web site for six years, and it now streams them live online, too.
HISD spokesman Norm Uhl said the district is researching ways to broadcast the meetings online.
I think the technology of that is pretty well understood at this point, so I hope what that means is they're looking for a way to do it given current staffing and funding levels. Live-streaming and posting videos is the obvious answer to the concern about hogging the public access channel. The rest is just details. I applaud HISD for taking this step, but let's not stop there. More like Cy-Fair and Houston City Council, please.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will begin running radio ads next week in the districts of six Republicans, all of whom voted against the economic recovery package. One of the six targeted districts, though, sticks out from the rest.Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), whose 10th District runs from the Houston suburbs west to include parts of Austin, is the only one of the six targeted members to represent a district won by John McCain in 2008. Both McCaul and McCain won the district by 11 points in November, which begs the question: Is the DCCC really targeting this seat?
Apparently they are, and in no small part because of an already well-funded candidate named Jack McDonald, whose exploratory committee announced yesterday that it had raised more than $300,000 in just five weeks. Should McDonald, a self-described "centrist Democrat" and "successful businessman," officially jump in the race, he'll face a Republican whose winning percentage has dropped significantly as his opponents have spent more money, but who held off a well-funded opponent last year.
BOR has more on McDonald. The D-Trip has also targeted Rep. Pete Sessions, who is also the NRCC Chair, in CD32. Nice to see national money flowing to Texas, instead of just the other way around. These two districts may be where all the action is this time around, especially if Rep. McCaul jumps into the race for Attorney General as has been speculated. That would require a few dominoes to fall first, and there's already a stand-by waiting in the wings in the event that happens, so I wouldn't consider that a likely event, but you never know. Regardless, I'm glad to see CD get some attention outside of Texas. I hope it can hold that attention for the duration.
After publishing about the alternate strip club tax that passed the House yesterday, HB982, I had some correspondence with the offices of Rep. Ellen Cohen and Rep. Senfronia Thompson about the revenue estimates, which I noted seemed quite divergent. Rep. Cohen's office sent me the following documents:
HB 982 revenue estimates (PDF) - This is a summary of the UT study referenced in the DMN story, which pegged the revenue totals in the $500K - $1.2M range.
Estimates for HB 2070 (PDF) - This is a similar study, by the same folks at UT, for Cohen's bill that modifies the existing law that was struck down by the district court in Austin, HB 2070. This projects $16.5M in revenue annually from HB 2070.
TEA-Judgment (PDF) - This is a copy of the judgment the strip clubs won against the current law, which was HB1751 from last session. Rep. Cohen's office asserts that HB2070 addresses the issues that the court specified in its ruling for the plaintiffs.
Rep. Thompson's office sent me the following statement, which is taken from three separate emails:
The revenue estimate is based on a review of the books of 60 of the 175 strip clubs in Texas. The 60 clubs based on their actual collected cover charges for 2008 would have produced over $3 million. Taking into account the size and revenues of the other clubs it was projected that the clubs alone would produce $4 -$8 million dollars. Because no one is sure what revenue the other SOBs will produce that amount was not included in our estimate. This is a low ball estimate since the previous projection on HB 1751 was so much higher than actual revenue produced.There is absolutely no reason the money already collected can't be spent as soon as the AG drops the appeal of HB 1751. If HB 982 doesn't pass the State is on the hook for more lawyers' fees ($500,000 for the plaintiffs so far and $180,000 for the AG) plus interest on all money collected by the state so far. The plaintiffs in the suit had committed to Rep. Thompson that if HB 982 passes they will not further pursue the lawsuit against HB 1751 and will drop their tax protest when the AG drops his appeal of HB 1751, allowing the money already collected to be distributed this biennium. Further, the plaintiffs have told our office and Representative Cohen's office that they will file another lawsuit if HB 2070 passes. It generally takes over a decade for a civil suit to progress from State District Court to a final U.S. Supreme decision. Rep. Thompson's position has never been that HB 982 will raise more money than HB 2070, but that it will deliver money to these long underfunded programs this year, not next decade.
We would like to point out that Rep. Thompson passed the legislation that established the Sexual Assault Fund in 1993 that all the bills are intended to fund. She successfully fended off two attempts to roll the Sexual Assault Fund into general revenue in 1995 and 1997. She also passed the Omnibus Protective Order bill and the legislation that made the National Domestic Violence hotline possible. Rep. Thompson has a long record of standing up for women's issues. Rep. Thompson's concern all along has been that the state stop wasting money in court cases on unconstitutional taxes and concentrate on finding a source of revenue for these programs that will help this year not after a decade long court battle.
So there you have it.
I have one more batch of Genius-gathered songs, also taken from recently ripped CDs, to go with the earlier group. This one is based on Pete Townshend's "Save It For Later", from his awesome "Deep End Live!" CD. As presented by Genius:
1. Save It For Later - Pete Townshend
2. Juke Box Music - The Kinks
3. Girls Talk - Dave Edmunds
4. Murder - David Gilmour
5. Man In A Suitcase - The Police
6. Roadrunner - The Modern Lovers
7. Anchorage - Michelle Shocked
8. It's Gonna Get Better - Genesis
9. Rock and Roll - Velvet Underground
10. Adam Raised A Cain - Bruce Springsteen
That's a pretty impressive collection of mostly deep cuts from familiar artists. And as played:
1. Save It For Later - Pete Townshend
2. Disorder In The House - Warren Zevon
3. Juke Box Music - The Kinks
4. Hard To Be A Saint In The City - Bruce Springsteen
5. Jackie Brown - John Mellencamp
6. Breaking Us In Two - Joe Jackson
7. Canary In A Coal Mine - The Police
8. Bitter Tears - INXS
9. Skateaway - Dire Straits
10. Swamp - Talking Heads
Genius clearly has a thing for Springsteen's debut album. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I'll have some new music next time, and will follow afterwards with some themed lists, just to change things up a bit. What are you listening to this week?
Yes, there is a big election coming up this year in Houston. More than one of them, actually. And yes, some of these elections involve people who are currently elected members of city government. Which means that a certain amount of politics will enter into city government business. And you know what? I think that's just fine.
The question seemed simple enough. City Councilman Peter Brown asked City Controller Annise Parker Wednesday why her estimates on Houston's financial health differed slightly from those of another city department head.Parker, who is running against Brown and two others to become Houston's next mayor, politely explained that the estimates were different because the two offices have their own methods of measuring city financial stability. Then it got a little testy.
"I'm not sure I know of another way to explain that to you, sir," she snapped.
The remark was the culmination of several weeks of political jousting in which the councilman has criticized the controller's management of city finances, both in official city meetings and through mailings from his council office.
Although both say they are only acting as good stewards of the offices to which they were elected, the back and forth offered a prologue to what could be a wild few months at the City Council table. Untangling official duties from political grandstanding may become far more difficult in the coming months as nearly half the council body is running for another office or considering such a move.
Not really seeing what the problem is here. We could stand for city business to gain a higher profile in the public mind. A whole lot of the mayoral campaigning that will be done this year will be done with not many people watching - this is even more true for the City Controller race - so as far as I'm concerned, the more visibility it has, the better. If Gene Locke and Roy Morales want to camp out at Council meetings and speak during the public input periods, that's fine by me, too. If it gets a little silly or overheated at times - I know, I know, I can't imagine that happening, either - that's all part of the process. On my List Of Things To Worry About, this is pretty far down.
UPDATE: Stace has more.
I didn't realize there was another bill dealing with the strip club fee out there, but there is, and it passed in the House.
Sexually oriented businesses, including adult video stores and nude dancing clubs, would pay a 10 percent tax on their entry fees under a bill tentatively passed today on a voice vote in the House.The revenue generated is expected to be significantly less than the clubs alone would have paid under last session's bill that added a $5 per-patron fee. The clubs have successfully attacked that law as a violation of the First Amendment because much of the money was earmarked for low-income health care. The state's appeal is pending at Austin's Third Court of Appeals.
The 10 percent tax would raise up to $8 million, compared to an estimated $40 million that budget analysts anticipated from the 2007 law (only $11 million has been paid to Texas so far, and is being held by the state comptroller pending the outcome of the legal challenge).
Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, offered a bill backed by the Texas Entertainment Association, which represents the clubs. The bulk of the money would fund services for sexual assault prevention and victims' services.
"We're going to be able to end the lawsuit and allow the state to be able to spend $11 million," said Thompson.
Rep. Thompson's bill is HB982, and it passed the House by a near-unanimous vote of 142-1. Rep. Ellen Cohen voted for this bill, but is still pushing her alternative as well.
Cohen has dozens of co-authors on her own replacement bill, which she says would address the courts' concerns by reducing the per-person charge to $3 and making sexual assault prevention programs the sole beneficiaries. Cohen, whose bill is in committee and has not yet come up for a House vote, said Thursday she would vote for Thompson's bill - as a supplement to hers and not a replacement. A recent University of Texas study estimated Cohen's $3 fee would raise between $16 million and $18 million annually, while Thompson's 10 percent admissions tax would raise between $500,000 and $1.2 million. Thompson says that number is low, and that her bill would raise between $4 million and $6 million annually."What we need to do is make sure whatever we're doing raises the most amount of money for the greatest amount of good," Cohen said.
Rep. Cohen's bill is HB2070, and it's pending in the Ways and Means committee right now. I'm curious about the different financial projections given in these two accounts. There's a huge gap between "$500,000 to $1.2 million" and "up to $8 million", or even "$4 to 6 million". Here's one possible reason for the discrepancy:
Critics of the bill say topless clubs could simply circumvent the law by removing or reducing cover charges. And, they add, many adult bookstores do not charge an admission fee."House Bill 982 is a bill pushed by the strip club industry as a supposed compromise. It raises very little, if any, money," said Torie Camp, deputy director of the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault.
Well, okay, but I suspect most strip clubs charge a cover fee to raise revenue for themselves, so it's not clear to me how reducing or removing that fee in order to circumvent a tax would be good business for them. And the original bill didn't include adult bookstores, so I don't quite get the objection there, either. Be that as it may, this bill has passed the House while Cohen's is still in committee, and at this point of the session, with so much more to be done, I think that has to be taken into account, because this may be all that can get done.
Sen. Jeff Wentworth's SB315, which passed on second reading last week in the Senate, may not make it to third reading because Wentworth no longer has enough votes to suspend the rules and bring it back to the floor. The reason for that is because one of the votes in favor of suspending the rules in the first place was apparently cast in error. From QR:
Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston) said today he inadvertently cast the vote that allowed Senate Bill 315 by San Antonio Republican Jeff Wentworth to be debated on the floor March 23."I've always been a no vote," Patrick told QR. "I just made a mistake when I voted to suspend. But I told the author that had made a mistake and that I'm a no."
Wentworth got the bill to the floor with the minimum 21 votes needed under the Senate rules. In each of the past two sessions, he's managed to pass a version of the redistricting bill only to see them die on the House side.
"I don't have a vote to spare," Wentworth said. "So, I either need to get someone to switch, or wait until someone is absent."
Although the bill passed on the first try, Wentworth was far short of the four-fifths vote he needed to finally pass it the same day. Now, he needs 21 votes to bring the bill back up for final passage.
Not exactly sure how it is that it took Danno a week to figure out that he'd goofed, but I suppose that's not important right now. I'm also unclear on that four-fifths provision - our Senate, like the one in DC, is full of arcana, among other things - but be that as it may, Wentworth appears to be stuck. Unless he can convince Lt. Gov. Dewhurst to bring it up the next time Patrick's taking a potty break or something, which we know is within the Dew's range. But it's not looking too good for this bill's prospects. As usual.
Andy Hallett, who played Lorne the singing demon on Angel, has passed away at the far too young age of 33.
The actor passed away at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles after a five-year battle with heart disease, with his father Dave Hallett by his side.Hallett, from the Cape Cod village of Osterville, Mass., appeared on more than 70 episodes of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer spinoff, Angel, between 2000 and 2004. The accomplished actor was also a musician and sang two songs ("Lady Marmalade" and "It's Not Easy Being Green") on the Angel: Live Fast, Die Never soundtrack, released in 2005.
The actor's character on Angel was Krevlornswath of the Deathwok Clan, or Lorne for short. Hallett's Lorne was a friendly demon, who, when not assisting Angel and his team in the investigation of various and sundry underworld mysteries, served as the host and headliner at a demon bar.
Back in 2001, Hallett told our own Jen Godwin that despite constant flirtation with David Boreanaz' character Angel, and the occasional sly Elton John reference, "We don't really know if he's gay. I don't really know. It's funny, because sometimes he's right in Angel's face, and that's when I feel it the most. And viewers would probably think, hmm, what's going on here? This guy's pretty curvy."
Hallett has spent his post-Angel years working on his music career, playing shows around the country. He had been admitted to the hospital three or four times in the past few years for his heart condition, according to [his longtime agent and friend Pat Brady].
He was one of my favorite characters on that show. I'm so sad to hear this. Rest in peace, Andy Hallett. I'll sing a few show tunes tonight in your memory.
Former Rep. Nick Lampson, who was a big advocate for NASA while he was in Congress, is now on the short list to become NASA's administrator.
The 64-year-old Stafford Democrat, whose Houston-area congressional district included Johnson Space Center, has joined a short list of prospective nominees for the $177,000-a-year post.Former astronaut Charles Bolden Jr., a retired Marine Corps major general, also remains in contention, in part because of support from Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., chairman of the Senate panel that oversees NASA.
[...]
The selection of a NASA administrator has dragged on for months. It has been complicated by political divisions within the NASA community, rival candidates favored by Texas and Florida lawmakers and a White House distracted by a national economic crisis.
A bipartisan group of 14 lawmakers -- including seven Texans -- recently wrote Obama to express their concern about the absence of a NASA administrator.
Freshman Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, who defeated Lampson in November's congressional election, said he found the lengthy delay "extremely troubling," especially with NASA's budget being considered by the House and critical decisions over program milestones mounting.
"I'm very concerned that five months after the election, we've still only heard rumors from the administration regarding the next NASA administrator," said Olson, who serves as ranking Republican on the House panel that oversees NASA.
[...]
Scott Pace, a former NASA official directing George Washington University's Space Policy Institute, said Obama would be looking for a two-person leadership team on which the administrator enjoys a strong relationship with the president and Congress -- and the deputy administrator would have broad technical expertise. "Between the two officials, you need to be able to operate up and out to the White House, Congress and the public -- as well as manage down and into the agency," Pace said.
Lampson, a political moderate with friendships that cross party lines, could help the $18 billion-a-year agency negotiate the treacherous political shoals of Capitol Hill.
Lampson was formerly the chair of that panel on which Olson now sits. I've heard rumors for months about Lampson being appointed to run NASA; I don't even remember where I first heard it. It makes a lot of sense, and he'd be a great fit for them. I wish him the best of luck in this pursuit.
I mentioned before that there was a bill to expand legalized poker this session. That bill is HB222 by Rep. Jose Menendez (D, San Antonio). Today it moved a step closer to passage as it was approved by the the Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee.
[The bill] passed 6-3 -- with the agreement that local communities would be able to vote on whether to legalize the game."The vast majority of communities in Texas will hold successful elections allowing Texas Hold'em at specific locations," said Mike Lavigne, state director of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA). "This is a smart way to allow local control over what will quickly become an economic development issue."
In Texas, it's legal to play poker for fun, or to play for money in a private home. But once the house or the dealer profits, the game becomes illegal, which has pushed the state's poker scene underground.
[...]
If cities voted to legalize poker, the state would be able to issue poker licenses to establishments, and allow them to collect fees on poker hands and game buy-ins. The poker operators would be taxed based on their revenue, money that would be returned to the state.
Getting passed out of committee is just Step Two of that thousand-mile journey, so don't go making any plans just yet. As I said before, this is an expansion of gambling I have no problem supporting. I wish the PPA luck in taking this the rest of the way.
UPDATE: The committee hearing for the bigger kinds of expanded gambling, "racinos" and casinos, will be next week.
I'd been wondering for a long time how the 2008 vote broke down by City Council districts, as well as for the city of Houston versus non-Houston Harris County. I finally did something about it awhile ago and made a call to Hector de Leon at the Harris County Clerk's office to ask him if precinct data was available from the 2007 election that could help me answer these questions. He very kindly provided me with a spreadsheet that gave all the 2007 results by precinct, and I was off to the races. Here's what I found out.
There's one key point that needs to be understood before I get into this: Precinct boundaries do not conform to City of Houston boundaries. In other words, a given precinct may have voters who live inside the City of Houston, and voters who do not. The effect of this on my analysis, since my data is only granular to the precinct level, is that about half again as many votes were counted as "City of Houston" than they were as "Harris County". That's because if a precinct had votes in it for the 2007 election in a city race, it was counted in its entirity towards the City of Houston total in 2008. Had this not been the case, I would have expected a roughly equal amount of votes inside and out of Houston in Harris County. I just don't have any way to make a distinction within a precinct, so we have to live with that.
That raises the interesting question of whether or not this skews the numbers I generated, and if so by how much? Precincts are geographically small, so these Houston/not Houston voters in the same precinct are basically neighbors for the most part. What's the bigger factor in determining their voting behavior: proximity or city limits? There's probably a master's thesis in that. In any event, my rough guess is that the results I've generated probably underestimate the Democratic-ness of the city of Houston and overstate it for its complement, but not by very much.
I note here I'm still using draft canvass numbers from 2008, which is basically all of the non-provisional votes. I don't think this makes much difference, either, but I wanted to mention it just to be clear. And so, without further ado...
District Obama Noriega Garcia Judicials
============================================
Houston 58.5 59.3 63.5 58.4
Harris 39.0 40.1 45.3 39.3
A 39.5 40.2 46.3 39.0
B 86.8 87.7 89.4 87.8
C 60.6 59.9 64.5 58.5
D 87.7 87.1 88.7 87.0
E 41.3 43.2 48.1 41.8
F 63.6 65.1 68.7 65.0
G 42.3 40.7 45.6 39.2
H 68.8 72.4 77.6 70.9
I 72.7 79.0 81.6 76.5
The numbers given are percentages of the vote, for Barack Obama, Rick Noriega, Adrian Garcia, and the county Democratic judicial candidates. A few thoughts:
- I had previously thought that District A would be amenable to electing a Democrat this year to replace the term-limited Toni Lawrence. That doesn't appear to be the case here. I was surprised to see that A was the most GOP of the districts - I'd have guessed it would have been E or G. It may be that the precincts that encompass District A also happen to include some strongly Republican non-Houston turf, more so than E or G, I can't say. But it does put a bit of a damper on my hopes for Jeff Downing and Lane Lewis.
- I expected Districts C and F to skew Democratic, but I was surprised by how much they did. Given that C's precincts likely include some pieces of West U and Bellaire, that's even more impressive. Democrats - and as that stands right now, that means Mike Laster - ought to win F this year, and I'd give good odds on winning C in 2011 when Anne Clutterbuck terms out.
- In the meantime, despite their inability to compete citywide, Republicans have overperformed a bit in winning district Council races, as they have five seats but are only a majority in three. As noted, I think that's a temporary situation, and given Adrian Garcia's showing in those three red districts, they shouldn't be taken for granted by anyone, either.
- Of course, the electorate for a historic Presidential race and the electorate for city races, even one with a wide-open Mayoral campaign, are two very different things. All things considered, that probably gives a more Republican tilt overall, one which is more pronounced in the years that don't have a Mayoral melee at the top of the ticket. How big an effect that is, and how much it's being counteracted by demographic trends, I couldn't say.
- Finally, I thought I'd add one more table, showing how many votes were cast in each Council district in the Presidential race, again bearing in mind all the caveats from above:
District Votes
==================
A 118,019
B 72,743
C 73,627
D 81,009
E 113,438
F 43,704
G 99,061
H 47,409
I 35,492
Even if you assume some districts are more bolstered by precincts with non-Houston voters than others, there are still some pretty huge differences there. Let's just say I foresee large challenges for those who are tasked with redrawing City Council districts, whenever that may be.
The good news is that the budget presented by the Senate isn't a big step backwards, which was a real concern given the bleak financial picture and the huge obligation of the property tax cuts, which we continue to be unable to fully pay for. As we know, we have the federal stimulus funding to thank for all of this. The bad news is that the Senate budget is not a step forward either, and it's not clear that much of those federal dollars will be used in a way that's actually stimulative.
As it stands, the budget proposal would increase funding for college aid, but not nearly enough to cover all students eligible for Texas grants. It would increase money for human services, but it wouldn't expand eligibility for the Children's Health Insurance Program.Among spending highlights, it would pour more money into community services for people with disabilities.
Public schools would get a boost, with some funding tied to separate finance system reforms. Universities and health-related institutions would get an increase.
Correctional officers would get pay raises, and a teacher incentive pay program would get an infusion.
The proposal also would increase funding for regulatory agencies to ensure they can properly do their jobs, a move budget-writers advocated because they said insufficient oversight contributed to national economic problems.
Budget supporters also addressed the controversial question of funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Before the Senate's 26-5 vote approval, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Steve Ogden clarified that his proposal only would prohibit money appropriated by the state budget from being used directly for research that involves the destruction of a human embryo. It would not ban such research.
Overall, the budget sought to balance spending on crucial services and saving for expected harder times to come. Backers said the budget makes progress and critics said it doesn't go far enough to address critical needs.
There also were questions over whether the budget properly uses nearly $11 billion in stimulus funding for the fiscal period that starts Sept. 1.
About half of the stimulus money would substitute for state funds that otherwise would be needed. That raised questions because the proposal leaves untouched a state savings account known as the rainy day fund. That account is expected to grow to $9.1 billion in a couple of years.
I have some sympathy for Ogden's position about not spending the money in the rainy day fund, given that sales tax revenues being collected now will be the basis of the next budget. Given how awful I thought this budget was going to be when the session first began, I almost feel a sense of relief at the way it has turned out so far. On the other hand, given how reluctant a lot of Republicans were to dip into the rainy day fund for just about everything, even hurricane relief, before we knew there would be enough federal money to cover whatever we needed, I can't say I have much faith that we won't be in an equivalent position in two years' time, only without any assistance from DC. And I know that the top priority of the Republicans will be maintaining those irresponsible property tax cuts. I'm glad to avoid the problem for now, and I'm glad that the usual budget victims escaped mostly unscathed, but I totally understand why those five Senators (all Democrats - Ellis, Gallego, Watson, Shapleigh, and Davis) voted no.
Of course, this isn't the final word, not by a longshot. The House still has to do its thing, and then there will be a committee to reconcile the two. As noted at the end of this story, among other things that could mean the Ogden stem cell rider, which was kinda sorta clarified, could be taken out. Here's Patricia Kilday Hart on what that rider now says:
"I have recently passed around what I think might be better language" which he will substitute in conference committee, Ogden said. The revised rider would prohibit the use of state money "to directly fund embryonic stem cell research" until the state Legislature passes "legislation regulating embryonic stem cell research."He said adding the word "directly" would mean that researchers at state universities could continue their work if it is funded by other entities. Opponents of the original rider had been concerned that embryonic stem cell researchers would no longer be able to work in state-supported institutions.
The process by which that rider made it into the budget in the first place was still lousy. I do hope it winds up on the cutting room floor.
One last issue with the budget has to do with money for the Frew settlement. Here's Kilday Hart again:
Sen. Leticia Van de Putte believes the Senate Finance Committee failed to include enough money in SB 1 to cover the state's obligations under the settlement of the Frew v. Hawkins lawsuit, in which the state agreed two years ago to significantly improve access to Medicaid services. And she lays the blame for the failure at the feet of Attorney General Greg Abbott's office.Van de Putte notes that Frew plaintiff's attorney Susan Zinn has sent two letters -- one dated Jan. 27 and one dated March 16 -- to the AG's office advising it of non-compliance with a 2007 agreement, particularly with a promise to spend $150 million on "strategic initiatives" to increase participation by children in Medicaid services -- primarily by increasing participation by health care providers. Zinn's letters to the AG noted that the Legislative Budget Board's funding recommendations for the next biennium do not comply with the court order. Van de Putte says Zinn has received no response from the state to her letters.
Further, she said, Senate budget writers were not advised of the plaintiff's concerns. "To my knowledge, (no one) in Finance or leadership was given those documents showing what was needed to be compliant," she said. "There was a disconnect."
If lawmakers fail to fully fund the settlement, "we will be in violation" of a federal court order, Van de Putte noted. "Our attorneys failed to communicate to budget writers."
Let's hope there are no nasty surprises lurking in there. Here's a statement from Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, one of the No votes, and a statement from Sen. Van de Putte, who voted Yes with reservations, is beneath the fold.
UPDATE: Floor Pass has a nice recap of yesterday's Senate budget action.
VAN DE PUTTE STATEMENT ON PASSAGE OF SB 1
"I voted for this budget with reservations. I still have serious concerns about the things we have chosen to make our priorities.This budget sends the wrong message. It says we're more concerned about protecting our rainy day fund than we are about protecting the children in the foster care system, or helping unemployed families in these tough economic times.
We have already been sanctioned by the U.S. District Court twice regarding our commitment to children receiving Medicaid. I continue to believe we can resolve the matter of Frew without putting the state at risk for more monetary sanctions that may in fact be more expensive than a corrective action would have been.
I believe that the Article 9 Rider, Section 17.13, which prohibits scientists from using state dollars for embryonic stem cell research, is a mistake. Why bother investing in the $3 billion dollar cancer initiative voters approved last session, if we are going to impede the ability of the state to attract the cutting edge scientists we need?
Never too early to be thinking about these things.
"I don't think it's a big stretch to say we can do 57 percent [countywide] in 2010," said Darlene Ewing, chairwoman of the Dallas County Democratic Party.Because of that comfort level, Ewing said, the county party is targeting Dallas County commissioner Precinct 4, held by Republican Ken Mayfield.
Mayfield won in narrow victory in 2006, as his Republican-leaning area in western Dallas County continued to see demographic shifts that resulted in more Hispanic voters.
Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Elba Garcia, a Democrat, is expected to challenge Mayfield next year.
Ewing said Democrats are also eying state House District 105, where last year Republican Linda Harper Brown of Irving held on by 19 votes to beat little-known Democrat Bob Romano.
HD105 is a given; it really should have been won in 2008, but that's water under the bridge at this point. It gets harder after that - HDs 108, 112, 113, and 114 are all within numerical reach, though they all present challenges. If they can find and fund quality candidates, anything is possible. Some defense will be in order as well, especially in HD 101, where the Obama wave was helpful to Robert Miklos' victory.
Beyond that, I sure hope their sights are set a little higher than this. Winning a County Commissioner's seat is big, but there's another prize out there that's just begging for a claim to be put in. I'm speaking about CD32, where Pete Sessions will be operating as the chair of the NRCC in a district that's trending strongly Democratic - as the Swing State Project documented, where George W. Bush won 64% in CD32 in 2000, and 60% in 2004, John McCain could muster only 53% last year. With the DCCC having already targeted Sessions on the airwaves, and with a lack of any countywide races to take over, why not take aim here? The Dems had a candidate in 2006 who had money but no visible campaign that I could discern, and a candidate in 2008 who ran an active campaign but had little money. Surely in 2010 they could find someone to put both halves of the formula together. Thanks to BOR for the link.
I got an email the other day about Descendants of Olivewood, a 501 (c) organization dedicated to the restoration and preservation of the historic Olivewood cemetery, and thought it was worth passing along. From the site:
Nestled against a bend of White Oak Bayou, and surrounded by rich Houston history, lies Olivewood, the city's first incorporated African American cemetery. It's been a jungle for years - the headstones have been literally buried under massive carpets of vegetation. Extending over an estimated 8 acres, only the front quarter of the cemetery had been successfully cleared of the seemingly endless tropical abundance including poison ivy and oak. For a long time, only the larger mortuary architecture rising above the undergrowth has hinted at Olivewood's location.Descendants of Olivewood, Inc. is dedicated to the reclamation of this cemetery for the benefit of the present and future generations of Houston. We are committed to restoring, preserving and maintaining Olivewood Cemetery as a historic, educational, charitable, religious and cultural site of importance.
Olivewood was incorporated in 1875, so to say the least it's a vital piece of Houston's history. There will be a historical marker dedication ceremony this Saturday, and the organization is looking for folks to help with a variety of projects. If you're interested, drop a note to info@descendantsofolivewood.org. Thanks very much.
I'm a little surprised that this got taken up so (relatively) quickly, but not at all surprised that it passed.
The House today passed a measure that would allow Texas voters to decide whether to allow the Legislature to override gubernatorial vetoes in short sessions after regular legislative sessions.The House voted 131 to 16 to approve a resolution by state Rep. Gary Elkins, R-Houston, that would put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot. The resolution now goes to the Senate.
Elkins said that although the Legislature has the authority to override a gubernatorial veto, legislators rarely get that opportunity because the session is typically over by the time the governor vetoes most bills.
"This will bring the power back to the people," Elkins told his colleagues.
The House passed a similar measure in 2007, but it died in a Senate committee.
The measure is HJR29. All 16 No votes were Republicans, including former Speaker Tom Craddick. And yes, this was authored by Gary "What's Medicaid?" Elkins. He was the author in 2007, too.
I don't know if it's due to April Fool's Day or what, but apparently Burka has had a change of heart on this.
Is this a good idea? When this came up two years ago, I was opposed to the amendment. My reason was that Texas has a constitutionally weak governor, and this proposal would further weaken the governor. Rick Perry, however, has changed the nature of the governor's office. His lengthy tenure has allowed him to appoint all of the officials who oversee the executive agencies. He is a very strong governor, at least in his ability to control the actions of the executive branch through what amounts to a de facto cabinet form of government. This amendment is needed to restore a balance of power. For example, the Legislature, which controls the purse strings, can pass a statute making Texas eligible for stimulus funds for unemployment insurance, but the governor can veto the statute.
I was ambivalent about this in 2007, and I think I've come to Burka's viewpoint now. The way things work, the Lege's veto power is more a theoretical one than a real one; as the Observer notes, the last actual veto override was in 1979. So yeah, I do think this would restore some balance, and as such if it does make it through to the November ballot, I'll vote for it.
That's assuming it gets that far, of course. Burka thinks the Senate version of this measure, SJR14 by Wentworth, will never come to a vote because Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst won't allow it. It hasn't been scheduled for a committee hearing yet, so who knows. RG Ratcliffe has more.
What to make of this?
Houston is set to embark on a program to provide a boost to some of the city's biggest developments, many of which have been put on hold amid the ongoing financial crisis.The plan aims to entice developers not to put their multimillion-dollar projects on hold in exchange for millions in incentives if the companies begin building soon and agree to make improvements to public roadways, sidewalks and streetscapes.
City Council is scheduled to vote today on what would be the first such incentive package for Regent Square, a planned 4-million-square-foot, $850-million mixed-use development that city officials said was about to be put on hold indefinitely by Boston-based GID Urban Development Group. The development will abut Allen Parkway near Dunlavy and Dallas.
If council approves, the company will receive $10 million in reimbursements to be paid out of tax revenues generated by the development.
"This is our own stimulus program," said Andy Icken, deputy director of the Department of Public Works and Engineering, who helped negotiate with the developer on behalf of the city. "The alternative to what we're talking about would have been to have a great deal of investment going on in this community and to have a big, giant piece of property sitting vacant for a long period of time."
Critics say such incentives go too far and run the risk of artificially propping up some property and creating more commercial real estate than there is demand for at a critical time for the economy.
"It's a zero-sum game," said Barry Klein, president of the Houston Property Rights Association, who has fought the expansion of government-involved development in that area in the past. "There's no net gain to the economy. It doesn't change the demand for commercial space, it simply changes the supply. The favored developer who owns the land is the beneficiary and the victims are taxpayers on the one hand and unfavored, unsubsidized developers on the other."
On the one hand, it doesn't do anybody any good for these lots to lie fallow. Empty lots are a drag on property values and property tax revenues, and can negatively affect nearby businesses; as Christof writes about the shaky start for Houston Pavilions, one dead block can turn off a pedestrian easily. We should want something to get built on them, it makes sense for that to be the original project where possible, and frankly some kind of incentives for developers is what makes the world go 'round, at least around here.
On the other hand, and I can't believe I'm about to say this, I think Barry Klein has a point. If we're incentivizing commercial development at a time when the economy can't support it, that doesn't sound like a recipe for success. How sure are we that this is the best use of our resources at this time?
Having said that, I disagree that this is a zero sum game. It's an investment, and if it's a good one there will be a return on it. It's certainly fair to question the value of such an investment, and I hope this is being done on more than optimistic assumptions. What kind of improvements would the developers be required to make, and would they be above and beyond what they would have done anyway? How many jobs might be created by getting these projects off the ground? Surely we can quantify some of this stuff.
I think Campos has a reasonable take on this:
Two things: 1) Commentary doesn't have a problem with this as long as other parts of town also get stimulated, and 2) How do the Mayoral candidates feel about this since they are the ones that are going be dealing with it next year.
Yes, if we're going to go down this road, we ought to make sure it's not an exclusive road. As for the Mayoral candidates, we'll know how Peter Brown feels about this by his vote on the measure. Annise Parker is still City Controller, and as such is well placed to speak out on things she thinks are Bad Ideas, so I'd say if we don't hear anything explicit, we can assume she's okay with it. I can predict with a fair degree of confidence that Roy Morales will oppose this on grounds that the government doesn't have any business stimulating anything. That leaves Gene Locke, and I don't know what he might think about this. But I agree it's a good idea for all of the Mayoral candidates to get asked about stuff like this going forward.
We are getting close to the end of my interview series with District H candidates. Today I have a conversation with Hugo Mojica, who is a native of the Northside and who has worked for former Council members Gabe Vasquez and Michael Berry. He currently works for the Brilliant Lecture Series, a local nonprofit organization. My interview with Hugo Mojica is here.
PREVIOUSLY:
Rick Rodriguez
Yolanda Navarro Flores
Lupe Garcia
Gonzalo Camacho
Maverick Welsh
To no one's surprise, in the wake of the Morning News story about Judge Sharon Keller's lack of financial disclosure as required by law, Texans for Public Justice has filed complaints against her. From their press release (PDF):
TPJ's complaints follow up on revelations recently reported by the Dallas Morning News. Officials who fail to comply with Texas' personal-financial disclosure laws are subject to a Texas Ethics Commission fine of up to $10,000. Travis County Attorney David Escamilla also can prosecute such Class B criminal misdemeanors, which carry a maximum penalty of $2,000 and six months imprisonment.
Apart from Texas' top criminal judge standing accused of committing a crime, these allegations are significant because Judge Keller has asked the state to pay her legal bills in an unrelated case before the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Responding to charges in that case last week, Keller attorney Chip Babcock asserted that forcing Judge Keller to foot her own legal bills would be "financially ruinous." This arguably was a false claim if Judge Keller has been hiding millions of dollars in assets that she was legally required to disclose to the public.[...]
"It looks like Judge Keller has been hiding her assets from the public for at least six year," said Texans For Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. "Unlike many of the defendants who have appeared before her, Keller can afford to hire a top-notch attorney."
Yeah, this one's pretty much kept the irony-meters pegged from the get-go. Here's the Ethics Commission complaint and the complaint letter to County Attorney Escamilla (both PDFs). As with all such matters, if any action gets taken on them, it won't be any time soon.
UPDATE: Keller will file an amended financial disclosure.
"We're going to make a corrected report," Keller attorney Ed Shack said. "There's some items that need to be put on her report. The judge met today with her father and her father's lawyer and they are determining what property is in her name."
Must be nice to have so much property that you can lose track of some of it.
UPDATE: Oh, this is just awesome. Here's Sharon Keller's excuse for not filing a full and accurate disclosure:
[Keller's lawyer Ed Shack] says two of Keller's real estate holdings inadvertently were omitted from previous filings because of a simple error. When Keller had a previous year's report recopied, two pages listing those holdings fell out of the stack; since that happened in 2002, those pages have not been replaced, Shack says. Keller is now checking with her father and her father's lawyer, Shack says, to make sure no other additional holdings mistakenly have not been reported.
Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm sure Judge Keller would believe that explanation from any appellant who appeared before her. Via Vince.
Has it really been over five years since the Women's United Soccer Association (WUSA) closed up shop? Time does fly. In any event, if you're a fan of women's soccer and have been waiting for another professional league to come along, your wait is over.
[T]he first Women's Professional Soccer season [launched] Sunday against the backdrop of a troubling recession that could yet be the precursor to another Great Depression.With infinitely better timing, the WPS' predecessor, the Women's United Soccer Association, lasted barely three seasons before closing. And basketball's WNBA, the reference standard of the genre with its dozen years of history, has seemingly plateaued despite optimism about its future. The demise of the once-dynastic Comets last summer for lack of ownership sounded an ominous warning shot.
Here's the WPS website. They didn't take my advice about a regional approach, as you can see, but hey, what do I know? Somewhat amusingly, or perhaps ominously, the third Google result for "women's professional soccer" is this dead WUSA page. Make of that what you will.
A crucial question remains to be answered, and quickly: Will viewers embrace the games on television, shown exclusively by Fox's soccer channel? And, most important for the long term, will the young women who aspire to play in the WPS congregate around TVs themselves to marvel at the skills of the brilliant Brazilian Marta -- just as adolescent boys do when Kobe and Lebron light up the flat screen?Plenty of girls play soccer or basketball or both, many at an intensely competitive level, but far fewer are inclined to spectate. Therein lies a huge rub, no doubt a crucial reason why the female pros haven't secured a niche for themselves as must-see TV, arguably a foundation for assuring their leagues of true viability. Boys aspiring to become athletes are almost always fans first -- and remain so after they quit playing. Women? Far less of a given, to be sure.
"I struggle to get my players to watch soccer on TV, or even to attend (Dynamo) games at the same stadium where we play," admits [University of Houston women's soccer coach Susan] Bush. "I definitely encourage them to and want them to, but ... as little girls, it's just not something that we did."
Kristine Lilly, who will play for her hometown Boston Breakers in WPS and, at 38, is the most tenured national team player -- male or female -- in soccer history, calls the observation Bush makes a "double-edged sword.
"In the past, young girls haven't had many opportunities to watch women (compete in sports) on television," Lilly said. "Now they have options, and I really think it's going to change the culture. It's very important for young girls to see that they can play at a professional level, too."
I'd been wondering about that lately, and I'm glad to see the article address that question. For my part, I've been trying to get Olivia to watch sports with me, but I haven't had much luck so far. She's shown no interest in televised sports, and while she'll attend live events with me, the games themselves don't hold her interest for long. Of course, that's largely a function of her age and attention span, at least for now. Ask me again in a few years and we'll see if I've succeeded.
As you know, I've touted the Handmade Toy Alliance, of which my cousin Jill is a member, on behalf of folks who run small home-based businesses making toys, crafts, clothes, and the like. Via a Facebook message from an old friend and college classmate, Kathy Gregoire, I learn there's a related movement here in Texas called Texas Cottage Food Law. From their website:
With the economy in its current state, you may have been thinking of starting a little cake or cookie business from your home to help make ends meet.But in Texas it is currently illegal to sell any food that was made in a residential kitchen. You cannot be licensed for a home bakery.
A group of dedicated cake artists are trying to change that law.
Representative Dan Gattis has filed a bill which would make it legal to sell non-potentially hazardous foods prepared in residential kitchens. It is House Bill 3282. This bill is currently before the Public Health Committee.
The Public Hearing was Tuesday, March 24. Watch a broadcast of it here.
The main points of the bill are summarized here. Basically, this would allow folks to register with the Department of Health to sell "non-potentially hazardous homemade foods" - mostly baked goods like cake, brownies, cookies, and bread - directly to consumers; no retail or commercial sales. This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for, so I support this effort. There's a petition you can sign, though if you really want to have an effect, you should call your State Rep, as the Texas Cottage Food Law site recommends. Bills like this often get lost in the shuffle - in a session like this, where we're just now getting around to voting on some things, that's even more so - but there's nothing like feedback from constituents to get a representative on board.