Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

Ten digit dialing comes to San Antonio

It’s the end of an era.

The era of knowing someone is from San Antonio based solely on the “210” at the start of a phone number is drawing to a close. San Antonio is outgrowing its singular 210 area code and will have to add a second code, 726, later this year.

The North American Numbering Plan Administration, which oversees national use of area codes, predicts that 210 numbers will be exhausted by early 2018.

Area code 726 will be an overlay code for the region currently serviced by 210, including the majority of Bexar County and parts of Atascosa, Comal, Guadalupe, Medina, and Wilson counties. An overlay area code means that 210 numbers will not change, but 726 numbers will be available to the same area.

The biggest immediate consequence is that San Antonio will cease to be the largest U.S. city in which seven digit dialing is possible, meaning that the old way of dialing local calls without an area code will no longer work.

“Right now we are in what is called a permissive period where you can use either a seven or 10 digit phone number in the 210 area,” said Terry Hadley, communications director for the Public Utilities Commission of Texas, which oversees area codes in addition to all electric, telecommunication, water, and sewer utilities for the State.

The six-month permissive period will end on Sept. 23, meaning that all local calls will require 10 digits, the three-digit area code and a seven-digit phone number. Long distance calls will continue to require 1 followed by 10 digits.

The activation date for the new 726 area code will be Oct. 23.

[…]

The 210 area code has been in place for San Antonio since 1992 and has become part of San Antonio’s identity for some.

“210 is really a brand for San Antonio,” said local resident Sarah Esserlieau. “There are a couple companies that reference 210 to show that they’re local companies, and I don’t know how that will affect branding.”

“Five or 10 years from now, will [210] be almost like a heritage number?” she questioned, suggesting the older area code could create a sense of pride similar to regional pride for area codes in some cities.

Yeah, well, when I was in college San Antonio was still using 512, same as Austin. It was still a long distance call, though, and you had to dial a 1 before the number. I do think 210 numbers will have a bit of prestige for them, as 713 and to a lesser extent 281 numbers in Houston do, but that may not be fully felt until there’s a third or even fourth area code that everyone else can look down on. And don’t worry, you’ll get used to the ten digit dialing thing. Hell, everyone has to do that already with cellphones, right? No big deal.

Posted in: The great state of Texas.

Friday random ten – Baby, baby

So many songs that start with the word “Baby”.

1. Baby Can I Hold You – Tracy Chapman
2. Baby Come Back To Me – The Manhattan Transfer
3. Baby Don’t Cry – INXS
4. Baby Don’t You Do It – Marvin Gaye
5. Baby Got Back – Sir Mix-a-Lot
6. Baby Love – The Supremes
7. Baby Mine – Bonnie Raitt
8. Baby Please Don’t Go – Them
9. Baby Won’t You Please Come Home – Asylum Street Spankers
10. Baby, Now That I’ve Found You – Alison Krauss

Once again we have a punctuational dliemma as we ponder why some of these songs have a comma after “Baby” and others do not. (Not to mention the missing question mark in song title #1.) Some obviously need no commas – “Baby Got Back”, “Baby Love”, and “Baby Mine”, clearly – but for others it’s debatable. I’m just a humble math major, I’m not going to make rulings, just raise questions. Tune in for more next week.

Posted in: Music.

July 2017 campaign finance reports – HISD

We still don’t know what’s happening with city of Houston elections this fall, but there’s plenty of action with HISD Trustee races. You can see all of the candidates who have filed so far and their July finance reports here. I’ve got links to individual reports and summaries of them, so join me below for some highlights.

Elizabeth Santos
Gretchen Himsl
Monica Richart

Kara DeRocha
Sue Deigaard

Holly Maria Flynn Vilaseca
Daniel Albert
Robert Lundin

Anne Sung
John Luman

Wanda Adams
Gerry Monroe
Karla Brown
Susan Schafer


Name        Raised    Spent    Loans   On Hand
==============================================
Santos      13,161    2,037        0     7,845
Himsl       17,685      832      500    17,352
Richart      5,565    5,996    6,197     5,765

DeRocha     17,676    2,006      355    15,669
Deigaard    22,716      769        0    20,381

Vilaseca    14,043      157        0    13,613
Albert           0        0   30,000         0
Lundin      13,480    1,565        0    11,915

Sung        31,660    1,673        0    29,208
Luman            0        0        0       456

Adams            0    6,484        0       421
Monroe           0        0        0         0
Brown            0        0        0         0
Schafer      4,690    2,543        0     2,026

So we have two open seats, in Districts I and V as Anna Eastman and Mike Lunceford are stepping down, one appointed incumbent running for a full term (Flynn Vilaseca), one incumbent who won a 2016 special election running for a full term (Sung), and one regular incumbent running for re-election (Adams). We could have a very different Board next year, or just a slightly different one. That includes all three of the traditionally Republican districts – V, VI, and VII. Interestingly, there is no Republican candidate in District V as yet, and the Republican runnerup in last year’s special election in District VII has apparently been idle so far this year. Daniel Albert is Chief of Staff for District F City Council member Steve Le, so I think it’s safe to say that he’s a Republican. Robert Lundin is a Rice faculty member who has been an HISD teacher and administrator and also opened YES Prep Southwest. I don’t have a guess as to what his politics may be. Whatever the case, I have to assume there will be more of a Republican presence in these races, but it’s starting to get a little late in the cycle.

The next most remarkable thing is Wanda Adams’ report. I’m not sure if it was filled out incorrectly or if she really did raise no money while spending her account almost empty. I don’t know what to make of that.

Otherwise, and putting the weirdness of the Sung/Luman situation aside, it looks like we have some competitive races shaping up. If you didn’t know anything but what is in this table, you might be hard-pressed to tell who’s an incumbent. I know there’s a lot of activity already for 2018, and I feel like we’re in a bit of a holding pattern until we know for sure what the deal is with city races. I suspect there’s a lot more to come in these races. Maybe we’ll see it in the 30-day reports.

Posted in: Election 2017.

OutSmart talks to Kim Ogg

Another good read about our new DA, one that goes into her personal background in some depth.

Kim Ogg

John Wright: Your father, Jack Ogg, was a longtime Texas state legislator, and your late mother was well-known for her charity work. What it was like coming out to your parents?

Kim Ogg: It was traumatic. My parents were of the generation—they felt like my being gay was their responsibility, and that they were morally accountable. I had grown up in politics, and I understood that being gay was a political liability to my father and family, and so it was excruciating. Our family broke apart for some time, but we’re so close that what that did was give me time to go grow up, which I did. I had been on my father’s “payroll” from birth to college, but the day I got out of college I was on my own, and I’ve been on my own ever since. My family and I didn’t see each other on anything but holidays after that for some time—almost four years.

Our family broke up, [but then] we came around. I quit being. . . I was a little militant. An example would be that I wore camouflage for almost a whole year. I was at war with the world. And then it turned out that to get and keep a good job, you needed to have a broader wardrobe.

[…]

In 1996, you ran for district judge as a Republican, and longtime antigay activist Steve Hotze endorsed your opponent in the primary. Were you gay-baited in that race?

They didn’t gay-bait me; they gay-crucified me. But they didn’t do it in print. They did it through a telephone and whisper campaign, and they injected a third candidate into the race. I did not interview with Hotze, and I never answered any questions for him, so I never lied about my homosexuality. [But] the whole courthouse knew. It was funny, they didn’t do an antigay mailer, but they did a whisper campaign. It was enough to force me into a primary runoff where extremists usually win, and so the more conservative candidate won.

Twenty years later, in 2016, you were gay-baited again by your Republican opponent, former district attorney Devon Anderson, and it became a major news story.

It was my lifelong fear, being called a lesbian in front of my entire hometown—4.5 million people, on television. It’s like showing up with no clothes on or something—that bad dream that you have. When it finally happened, I knew it was exploitable and could benefit me, but I had to magnify that thing that I was so afraid of. And so we just sent it out to everybody—it was so freeing. It was sort of like coming out to my family. At that point, you don’t have anything left to lose. You have everything to gain. I realized at that moment how much that fear—it wasn’t a false fear—but it felt so good to let it go and just send it out to the world: “Devon Anderson called me a lesbian.” Discrimination, no matter how you dress it up, is wrong. For Devon to have regressed to name-calling was indicative of her losing the election.

When you ran as a Republican in 1996, Republicans attacked you for having voted in Democratic primaries. When you ran as a Democrat in 2014 and 2016, you were criticized for having voted in Republican primaries. Talk about your partisan evolution.

I think the criticism has been that I have been disloyal to both parties, and what I would tell you is that I grew up in the Democratic Party. I was pretty frustrated with [Democrats] in the mid-’90s, and Republicans were promising this big tent, and I thought it sounded reasonable. It didn’t turn out to be true. In the second presidential campaign under George W. Bush, they really utilized gay marriage—it was used as a wedge issue nationally in 2004, and I would say that radicalized me to the Democratic perspective. I was never going to be for a party that stood for hate and that used discrimination as a platform, as a literal political platform. So, for 13 years, I’ve been a Democrat and stayed a Democrat, and I don’t intend to ever change.

There’s more, so go read it. It’s fascinating to me because I didn’t know a lot of this stuff. Partly this is because I wasn’t paying close attention to local politics in the 90s, and partly because Ogg herself didn’t talk about any of it during either of her campaigns. Hearing her talk now about how she was affected by the gay-baiting in the 2016 campaign, mild as it was in comparison to some other examples we’ve seen, is an eye-opener. Check it out.

Posted in: Local politics.

Paxton’s preemptive “sanctuary cities” lawsuit dismissed

Good.

Best mugshot ever

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks on Wednesday dismissed the state of Texas’ lawsuit against Travis County and other defendants over the state’s new immigration enforcement law.

Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a pre-emptive lawsuit shortly after the bill was signed in May seeking a ruling that the controversial measure is constitutional. Among the defendants named in Paxton’s suit were the city of Austin; Travis County and its sheriff, Sally Hernandez; and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

[…]

But opponents of the measure, including the cities of Houston, Austin, San Antonio and El Cenizo, as well as Maverick and El Paso counties, have argued the law violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Those entities filed a separate lawsuit against Abbott and Paxton in San Antonio, trying to prevent the law from taking effect. Oral arguments in that case were heard in June.

Sparks’ ruling means the case will stay in San Antonio.

In a statement, the attorney general said he was disappointed in Sparks’ ruling but that Wednesday’s decision has no effect on the San Antonio case.

“We were first to file a lawsuit concerning SB 4, filed this case in the only proper court, and moved quickly to consolidate other lawsuits against SB 4 in Austin,” he said. “The health, safety, and welfare of Texans is not negotiable. We’re disappointed with the court’s ruling and look forward to pressing our winning arguments in the San Antonio cases and beyond (if necessary) on this undoubtedly constitutional law.”

Though Sparks’ ruling Wednesday is a small victory for SB4’s opponents, they must now wait and see what U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia decides following a seven-hour hearing in Bexar County on June 26.

So that means that Judge Garcia will get to decide whether the law goes into effect on September 1 or if it is put on hold pending final judgment in the lawsuit. I don’t think this ruling changes the basic contours of the case, but as I recall if Paxton had prevailed in his lawsuit, that would have put the defendants he filed against on the hook for court costs. That’s no longer the case now. Now we await what Judge Garcia has to say.

Posted in: Legal matters.

The rural/suburban tradeoff

Martin Longman returns to a point he has been making about the way the vote shifted in the 2016 election.

Let’s try to be clear about what we mean. Hillary Clinton won a lot of votes in the suburbs from people who had voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney. She lost even more votes from folks in small towns and rural areas who had voted for Barack Obama.

So, if I understand what Jeet Heer and David Atkins are saying, it’s basically that the Democrats can’t make much more progress in the suburbs than they’ve already made and that the easier task is to win back Democrats that they’ve recently lost. Either that, or they’re just wrong about how likely Romney Republicans are/were to defect.

I don’t have a strong opinion on which would be the easier task. But I do know that so far this trade has not favored the Democrats. The left’s votes are already too concentrated and I can make this point clear fairly easily.

When suburban Chester County was voting 50-50 in the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, it was possible for the Democrats to also win down ballot seats. And the Democrats have succeeded in electing representatives from Chester County to the state legislature. Gaining 25,000 votes at the top of the ticket helps, but the area is still competitive. But in many other counties in Pennsylvania, the Democrats went from winning 50 percent or 40 percent to winning only 30 percent or 20 percent. The result is that many more legislative seats became so lopsidedly red that downticket Democrats no longer have a fighting chance.

In this sense, not all votes are equal. It’s more valuable for the Democrats to add a voter in a rural area than one in a competitive suburb, and rural votes are definitely of more use than added votes in seats where Democrats are already winning by comfortable margins.

Longman confines his analysis to Pennsylvania, which is obviously a critical state in Presidential elections as well as one that has been greatly affected by strongly partisan gerrymanders. Be that as it may, I wanted to look at how this perspective applies to Texas. It’s been my perception that Texas’ rural legislative districts, which had already been strongly Republican at the federal level but which still elected Democrats to the State House, had become more and more hostile to Democrats since the 2010 election, when nearly all of those Democratic legislators from rural districts were wiped out. If that’s the case, then the increased redness of these districts, while problematic as a whole for statewide purposes, doesn’t change anything in terms of legislative opportunities. On the other hand, if the suburbs are becoming less red, that would open up new possibilities, both now and in the future as this is where much of the population growth is.

That’s my hypothesis, anyway. To check it, I took the electoral breakdown of the State House districts for the 2012 and 2016 elections from the Legislative Council, and put the results from the Presidential election into a new sheet. I also added the results from the Keasler/Burns (2016) and Keller/Hampton (2012) Court of Criminal Appeals races in there, to act as a more neutral comparison. I then sorted the spreadsheet by the Romney percentage for each district, in descending order, and grouped them by ranges. I calculated the change in R and D vote from 2012 to 2016 for each district in both the Presidential and CCA races, then summed them up for each of the ranges I defined. That’s a lot of words, so let’s see what this looks like, and I’ll explain it again from there:


Romney 70%+ (42 districts)

Trump     + 143,209    CCA R   + 267,069
Clinton   +  36,695    CCA D   -   8,330


Romney 60-70% (31 districts)

Trump     +  15,054    CCA R   + 135,280
Clinton   + 164,820    CCA D   + 116,534


Romney 50-60% (23 districts)

Trump     -  32,999    CCA R   +  69,230
Clinton   + 148,633    CCA D   + 101,215


Romney 40-50% (9 districts)

Trump     +   3,081    CCA R   +  16,418
Clinton   +  45,233    CCA D   +  39,721


Romney 30-40% (20 districts)

Trump     -   9,360    CCA R   +  17,429
Clinton   +  84,385    CCA D   +  69,785


Romney < 30% (25 districts)

Trump     -   3,485    CCA R   +  23,031
Clinton   +  90,251    CCA D   +  76,447

Let’s start at the top. There were 42 district in which Mitt Romney collected at least 70% of the vote in 2012. In those 42 districts, Donald Trump got 143,209 more votes than Romney did, while Hillary Clinton gained 36,695 more votes than Barack Obama. In the CCA races, Republicans gained 267,069 votes while Democrats lost 8,330 votes. Which tells us two things: The pro-Republican shift in these already very strong R districts was pronounced, but even here there were some people that refused to vote for Trump.

Now that doesn’t address the urban/suburban/rural divide. You get into some rhetorical issues here, because West Texas includes some decent-sized metro areas (Lubbock, Midland, Abilene, etc), but is still more rural in character than anything else, and some primarily suburban counties like Montgomery and Williamson include sizable tracts of farmland. Keeping that in mind, of the 42 counties in this group, I’d classify nine as urban/suburban, and the other 33 as rural. To be specific:


Dist  County      Romney   Trump   Obama  Clinton     Diff
==========================================================
015   Montgomery  57,601  56,038  16,348   24,253 D +9,468
016   Montgomery  45,347  52,784  10,229   12,666 R +5,000
020   Williamson  49,271  56,644  17,913   20,808 R +4,478
024   Galveston   49,564  51,967  16,936   20,895 D +1,556
033   Collin      51,437  56,093  18,860   27,128 D +3,612
063   Denton      50,485  53,127  18,471   24,600 D +3,487
098   Tarrant     58,406  57,917  18,355   25,246 D +7,390
128   Harris      40,567  40,656  14,907   17,165 D +2,347
130   Harris      53,020  55,187  15,928   22,668 D +4,583

These are urban/suburban districts among those were 70% or more for Mitt Romney. Hillary Clinton gained votes everywhere except in the two, with the two exceptions being the most rural among them; HD16 is the northernmost part of Montgomery County, including Conroe, while HD20 has most of its population in Georgetown and includes Burnet and Milam Counties as well. In the other 33 districts, all of which I’d classify as rural, Clinton did worse than Obama in all but three of them, CDs 82 (Midland County, Tom Craddick’s district, where she had a net gain of 16 – yes, 16 – votes), 81 (Ector County, which is Odessa and Brooks Landgraf’s district, net gain of 590 votes), and 06 (Smith County, home of Tyler and Matt Schaefer, net gain of 871).

I’ve thrown a lot of numbers at you here, so let me sum up: Hillary Clinton absolutely got blitzed in rural Texas, with the gap between her and Donald Trump increasing by well over 100,000 votes compared to the Obama/Romney difference. However, all of this was concentrated in legislative districts that were far and away he least competitive for Democrats to begin with. The net loss of potentially competitive legislative races in these parts of the state is exactly zero.

Everywhere else, Clinton gained on Obama. More to the point, everywhere else except the 60-70% Romney districts, downballot Democrats gained. Even in that group, there were big steps forward, with HDs 66 and 67 (both in Collin County, both held by Freedom Caucus types) going from over 60% for Romney to under 50% for Trump, while HD26 in Fort Bend went from nearly 63% for Romney to barely 50% for Trump. They’re still a challenge at lower levels, but they’re under 60% red and they’re the swing districts of the immediate future.

Now I want to be clear that losing the rural areas like this does have a cost for Democrats. The reason Dems came as close as they did to a majority in 2008 is because they held about a dozen seats in rural areas, all holdovers from the old days when nearly everyone was a Democrat. Those seats went away in 2010, and with the exception of the one that was centered on Waco, none of them are remotely competitive going forward. The end result of this is that the most optimistic scenario I can paint barely puts the Dems above 70 members, not enough for a majority. To have a real shot at getting a majority sometime in the next decade or two, Dems are going to have to figure out how to compete in smaller metro areas – Lubbock, Abilene, Tyler, Odessa, Midland, San Angelo, Amarillo, Wichita Falls, etc etc etc – all of which are a little bit urban and a little bit more rural. Some of these places have growing Latino populations, some of them are experiencing the same kinds of problems that the larger urban areas are facing. Becoming competitive in the suburbs is great, but there’s still a lot more to this very large state of ours.

Anyway. I can’t speak for places like Pennsylvania and Ohio, but in Texas I’d call the rural/suburban tradeoff we saw in 2016 to be a positive step. There are plenty more steps to take, but this was a good one to begin with.

Posted in: Election 2016.

Dallas Observer Q&A with CD32 candidate Colin Allred

A good read.

Colin Allred

What was it like transitioning out of football and then into your kind of life of public service?

I think any football player always has a hard time coming out of it. The longer you’re in, the harder it is. Even people who play high school football, I think, have a hard time when they get to college and they can’t play anymore. Especially if you go to college and especially NFL because your life is so structured around it. Football required 100 percent of my attention, my energy to play at that level. It took everything I had. Once you pull out of that, it’s like you’re suddenly pulling the plug on something.

All of a sudden there’s no 6 a.m. workouts anymore. There’s no daily ritual that you’ve got to do every day to get ready for the next game. The biggest change for me was, number one, losing that sense of structure. Number two, in football you’re all on the same side. You’re all working towards a common goal. Then you get out in the rest of the world, and everybody is pulling in different directions. In a lot of ways it can feel very isolating and lonely because you’re not surrounded by this brotherhood of people who are all working for the same thing. The transition for all of us it was difficult. It was difficult for me, too.

I got interested in public service because I really felt like “there but for the grace of God go I” in a lot of different cases, whether it was somebody getting in trouble with the law or not being able to become whatever they wanted to become. I knew that I had been lucky to have a lot of help at each step of the way to let me roll with the pitfalls. I felt like I’d been given so much by public institutions, by public schools, by community institutions like the YMCA that I really wanted to strengthen those and make sure they were strong. Not all of us have ideal home lives or have the resources to move forward and give access to exclusive places. We rely on public and community-based things throughout our lives to help us become what we want to become.

In law school and then during your time as an attorney, was it always the plan to run for public office at some point? Was that something you were always interested in, or was running for congress a more recent decision.

Yeah, it’s more recent. I got into civil rights law because I wanted to make a difference. I wanted to impact obviously the law and the ways that it was being applied. I wanted to make sure it applied equally. I really felt like going into politics was the extension of that.

I guess it’s basically the same thing: trying to make sure that everybody gets an equal shot. It became clear to me that, like Robert Kennedy said, “If we’re gonna change our politics, we’re gonna have to change our politicians.” It was voting rights actively being gutted, for example. Some of our best efforts in the legal system end up being stymied or take years and years to get results. They’re important and we gotta keep going on them, but we really need to have legislators first. And, like a lot of folks, I was shocked by the election. I was shocked by the outcome.

I thought a lot about the kids I grew up with here going to Dallas schools here, thought a lot about things that I felt like Trump was targeting them and talking about them and their families, and I really felt like that wasn’t who we are. It’s not who we are as people. I feel like it’s a very dangerous time for the country. I feel like in 20 or 30 years our kids and our grandkids will ask us, “Well, what did you do when all this stuff was going on? When the constitution was being questioned. When people were being pitted against each other. How did you get involved?” I want to be able to have a good answer.

Why take on Pete Sessions? You could have run another race. You could have run for the state House or something locally. Why jump in in 32?

Well, like I said, it’s where I was born and raised, so it’s important to me that I have a deep connection to this area. It’s a really personal race for me. Obviously it’s political, but it’s also personal because I have such deep roots here, and I felt like, particularly in the Congress, the direction that it’s been going in is one that we need to change and we need to be challenging at every single one of these levels. My experience is at the federal level. I’ve worked in the Obama administration for three different stints. My experience is federal, and so I think I should try to apply myself there.

There’s a lot more, so read the whole thing. Allred and Ed Meier are the two main contenders against Sessions in CD32, with both of them posting strong Q2 fundraising numbers. He’s one of many Obama administration alumni running for office this year. I didn’t see that the Dallas Observer had done a similar Q&A with Meier, but if they do I’ll make note of it.

Posted in: Election 2018.

Texas blog roundup for the week of August 7

The Texas Progressive Alliance would like you to know that Donald Trump did not dictate any of the contents of this week’s roundup to us.

Continue reading →

Posted in: Blog stuff.

July 2017 campaign finance reports: State Senate targets

The Trib highlights a couple of races of interest.

Senate District 8

State Sen. Van Taylor, R-Plano, has not yet announced he’s running for Congress — he is expected to after the special session — but the race to replace him is already underway. Phillip Huffines, the chairman of the Dallas County GOP who has been campaigning for the Senate seat since March, put $2 million of his own money into his campaign and raised another $547,000, leaving him with $2.4 million in the bank. State Rep. Matt Shaheen, the Plano Republican who is likely to run for the Senate seat but has not yet made it official, had $495,000 cash on hand after raising $62,000 at the end of June and loaning himself $187,000 in June.

Senate District 10

State Sen. Konni Burton, R-Colleyville, already has two Democratic challengers in her battleground district, where she has a $352,000 war chest after raking in $196,000 at June’s end. One of her Democratic foes, Beverly Powell, raised $50,000 in just under a month and has $32,000 in the bank. Powell’s cash-on-hand figure is closer to $46,000 when factoring in online donations she received at the end of June, according to her campaign. Another Democratic candidate, Alison Campolo, posted smaller numbers.

Senate District 16

State Sen. Don Huffines, R-Dallas, is also on Democrats’ target list for 2018. He reported raising $222,000 at the end of June and having $930,000 in cash on hand. One of his Democratic rivals, Nathan Johnson, began his campaign in early April and has since raised $80,000, giving him a $65,000 cash-on-hand tally. Another Democratic candidate, Joseph Bogen, kicked off his bid in May and had raised $32,000 by the end of June. He has $21,000 in cash on hand.

Do I have finance reports for Senate districts and candidates of interest? Of course I do.

Van Taylor
Matt Shaheen
Phillip Huffines
Texans for Kelly Hancock
Konni Burton
Beverly Powell
Alison Campolo
Don Huffines
Nathan Johnson
Joe Bogen
Texans for Joan Huffman


Dist   Name         Raised     Spent      Loans     On Hand
===========================================================
SD08   Taylor        1,000   191,355    850,000     370,852
SD08   Shaheen      61,835     7,633    466,844     495,310
SD08   P Huffines  546,656   202,474  2,000,000   2,356,109
SD09   Hancock      87,655    86,634          0   1,205,070
SD10   Burton      196,058    49,152    240,000     351,787
SD10   Powell       51,200     1,265          0      31,704
SD10   Campolo       8,004     5,163          0       3,604
SD16   D Huffines  222,297   151,336  1,680,000     929,698
SD16   Johnson      80,260    14,851      5,286      64,728
SD16   Bogen        31,988     4,010          0      21,118
SD17   Huffman      10,025    54,606          0     410,465

Here’s my look at State Senate precinct data, with an eye towards evaluating potential electoral targets for 2018. The three of greatest interest are SDs 10, 16, and 17, more or less in that order. We’ve met the SD10 hopefuls, but this is the first I’ve heard of challengers in SD16. Here’s Nathan Johnson‘s webpage, and here’s Joe Bogen‘s. I don’t know anything more about either of them than that, so if you do please feel free to speak up. As for SD17, I sure hope Fran Watson or someone like her makes her entry soon, because right now the only opponent for Joan Huffman is Ahmad Hassan.

Posted in: Election 2018.

From the “Actions speak louder than words” department

RG Ratcliffe of Texas Monthly speaks to former Railroad Commissioner and Texas Education Commissioner Michael Williams about his disapproval of bathroom bills.

RGR: You told me political parties over time curdle and spoil, but is there something about the debate over the bathroom bill that is particularly disappointing to you?

MW: Yes, there is. Where the legislature left it was that the burden and the onus of dealing with this whole transgender issue, they were going to leave to the most vulnerable and youngest members of Texas—children. Not adults. Somebody had warned that issue, to put that burden on adults, might have adverse economic impact on Texas, I agree with that, mind you. So we’re not going to do anything about adults. What we’re going to do is put the burden on the Texans who are coming into their own and first dealing with this stuff, about who they are and how they deal with other folks, the youngest Texans, the most vulnerable Texans. Now to me, you know, if you’re going to do this stuff, you don’t put the burden on children.

I don’t know jack about being transgender, obviously. I do have transgender friends. But I can imagine, if I was having to deal with issues of just ‘Hey, what’s it like to be a boy at fourteen, fifteen, sixteen,’ and what all that means, I can imagine that they’ve got a whole bunch of other stuff that they’ve got to go through in their head and now we’ve got to make them go through some other hoops? Not the adults in Texas, the children.

Look. Ain’t no transgender boy going into the bathroom to beat up little girls. That ain’t happening. If anything, [transgender] people are the one’s that are going to get jacked up. There’s just no problem here, on our campuses, our school officials have demonstrated that they are more than capable, on a case-by-case basis, to deal with these issues, because they’ve done that. So there is no problem that requires some kind of statewide solution. Those kids aren’t posing a problem to their fellow students. Local school officials in their own way. What’s to me unsavory is that we’re putting the burden of this issue on the backs of the youngest and most vulnerable members of our society, which is children. Not the adults because, you know, I think we realize there could be a real financial consequence to this shit.

RGR: I’m just a tad younger than you, and I have a distinct memory of segregated bathrooms and segregated water fountains. I spent the early part of my career working in Georgia and Alabama and got assigned to cover a lot of white supremacist rallies, and the one phrase I kept hearing over and over again was you know, ‘We have to protect our daughters.’ And I hear a lot of similar connections in this debate. Is that justifiable?

MW: I have a mother who is still in my life, thankfully. I have a wife. I have two sisters. And I have a bunch of nieces. So yes, we want to protect the women in our lives. But the reality is, help me understand what the threat is to them. Show me evidence that some transgender woman is posing a threat to them. I’m an old prosecutor, I was a prosecutor for ten years, we’ve got laws against sexually assaulting someone. So someone will say to me, ‘But Michael, we want to prevent that person from going into the bathroom in the first place.’ If somebody is bound and determined to go to a bathroom and do harm, that person will do it. This law ain’t gonna stop it.

What we haven’t learned over the course of society is that we as society, we’re not very capable of truly preventing crime. What we can do is load up the punishment on the backend and say that if you jack up and do something stupid, then we’ll drop a load on you. I think there’s all sorts of officers who told you that [on Wednesday] when they were in Austin. This law ain’t gonna stop anybody who’s bound and determined to do something. So if you want to have enhanced penalties, for instance, that says, you know, if you go into a bathroom looking like a woman, but you’re really a man, and you go in there for the purpose of doing harm to women, then boy we’re going to enhance your penalty. That might be the right thing to do. But this ain’t.

I don’t agree with his criminal justice prescriptions, but on balance, Williams is clearly making a lot of sense. He has compassion for transgender people, he respects the role and authority of local officials, and he speaks in a manner we would recognize as Republican, at least from a bygone era. Kudos to him for that.

The problem, which is something I’ve been harping on, is in what Williams doesn’t say. Ratcliffe doesn’t ask, and Williams doesn’t volunteer, if any of “this shit” will cause Williams to not vote for some or all of the Republican incumbents who are pushing it. Williams is still a Republican to the core, and he expresses his disdain for the Democrats later in the article, which is certainly understandable given who he is. But I’m not saying he needs to vote for any specific candidate, I’m just saying he needs to make it clear that a candidate who supports a bathroom bill won’t get his vote. I want to hear Michael Williams say “I can’t vote for Dan Patrick (or his State Rep or State Senator if it applies) and I urge other Republicans who agree with me to not vote for him as well”. Because while saying what he did in this interview is laudable, if in a year or two Williams follows it up with “well, I disagree with Dan on that but I support him otherwise”, or “I don’t like the policies that the Republicans in charge are pursuing but I can’t bring myself to vote for someone else”, or “I hate what they’re doing but as a Republican in this town I’ve still gotta make a living”, then the appropriate description is “craven”. Surely Williams, as a veteran politician himself, recognizes that the one sure way to get through to a politician is to tell him that he has lost your support. In this matter, it is the very least, as well as the most important thing, we can do.

Posted in: That's our Lege.

Lina Hidalgo for Harris County Judge

From the inbox, our first announced candidate for Harris County Judge:

Lina Hidalgo

Today, Lina Hidalgo, a young, Harvard and Stanford-educated immigrant, announces her candidacy for Harris County Judge, the top seat on the Harris County Commissioners Court.

Ms. Hidalgo and her family fled Colombia in the height of the drug war, and arrived in Houston after living for several years in Peru and Mexico. Ms. Hidalgo attended public high schools and went on to attend Stanford University, where she graduated with a degree in political science in 2013. She became a U.S. citizen the same year.

“Harris County has given me and my family so much, and I feel a deep responsibility to give back,” said Ms. Hidalgo, when asked why she is running for office. “I had friends who, like me, were eager for knowledge and an opportunity to grow but whose family, unlike mine, ran into tough luck instead of a lucky break. I want Harris County’s government to help foster opportunities for everyone who is lucky enough to live here.”

Hidalgo has spent years working on behalf of the community and for fairer and more effective criminal justice systems. She has gone on to pursue a joint degree in law and public policy at NYU and Harvard. Hidalgo’s aim is to harness the power of Harris County to reform the County’s criminal justice system; make sure people are safe from flooding; promote safe, accessible neighborhoods; and pave the way for better jobs.

“Change can’t come fast enough to communities who are hurting from the losing side of discrimination, poor infrastructure decisions, and inequality,” Hidalgo said. “I am eager to serve my community and give back. We have to fight to fix the gross inequality and waste in our criminal justice system, to build a Commissioners Court that more in touch with the community, and to make sure every family here has a fair shot.”

Hidalgo’s website is here and her Facebook page is here. She is the first declared Democratic candidate for County Judge; Annise Parker is known to be considering the race, but as yet has not made any commitments. This is obviously the toughest race on the county ballot for a Democrat, as Judge Ed Emmett has been a top votegetter and will have plenty of goodwill and financing. Hidalgo is an interesting new face and appears to have a good story to tell about herself. I look forward to hearing more from her.

Posted in: Election 2018.

July campaign finance reports – Harris County candidates

The Harris County situation for candidates and campaign finance reports is a bit complicated. Take a look at my January summary and the reports and data that I’ve found for July, and we’ll discuss what it all means on the other side.

Ed Emmett

Jack Morman
Jack Cagle

Stan Stanart
Chris Daniel

Diane Trautman

David Patronella
George Risner
Don Coffey
Lucia Bates
Laryssa Korduba Hrncir
Daryl Smith
Jeff Williams
Armando Rodriguez
Zinetta Burney
Louie Ditta


Name        Raised    Spent     Loans     On Hand
=================================================
Emmett     472,172   99,684         0     551,875

Morman     635,050   98,611     44,339  2,261,453
Cagle      561,350  197,375          0  1,008,707

Stanart     49,100   10,124     20,000     69,384
Daniel      49,350   51,681     55,000     25,359
Sanchez

Trautman    15,251    2,978          0     18,009
Evans
Lee

Patronella  20,215    5,075          0
Risner       2,550    7,202          0     81,053
Coffey         200    7,214          0     57,694
Bates (*)      850      575          0        567
Korduba (R) 24,870    5,085          0     33,466
Smith (**)       0      300          0          0
Williams (R)     0        0     60,000     13,396
Rodriguez        0        0          0      2,219
Burney           0        0          0        902
Ditta (R)        0    1,907      2,000     17,006

Let’s start with what isn’t there. I don’t see a report as yet for Harris County Treasurer Orlando Sanchez, nor do I see one for HCDE Trustees Louis Evans (Position 4, Precinct 3) and Erica Lee (Position 6, Precinct 1). Diane Trautman (Position 3, At Large) has a report, but she is running for County Clerk, so as yet there are no candidates of which I am aware for the position she is vacating. Finding Louis Evans’ name among the list of Trustees was a bit of a surprise, since he had not been elected to that position in 2012. He was appointed to the seat in November of 2015 to replace Kay Smith, who stepped down to run in the Republican primary for HD130. I just missed that announcement, so my bad there. Evans as noted in the linked release, was Smith’s predecessor in that position, serving the six year term from 2007 to 2013. He was not on the ballot for the GOP primary in 2012, so if he runs for another term this would be the first time he has faced voters since 2006.

County Judge Ed Emmett does not have an opponent yet, as far as I can tell. There’s a bit of confusion because three people – Christopher Diaz, Shannon Baldwin, and LaShawn Williams – have filed requests for authorization forms for electronic filing, with County Judge as the office they plan to seek. At least two of these people are not running for County Judge, however. Williams appears to be a candidate for Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 3, and has filed a finance report listing that office as the one she seeks. She has also filed a report for the office of County Judge. I presume the latter is an error, but they both have different numbers in them, so who knows? Baldwin’s case appears to be more clear, as she has a Facebook page for her candidacy for County Criminal Court #4, for which she has filed a finance report, again with the correct office listed. As for Diaz, I have no idea. I don’t think he is the Precinct 2 Constable Chris Diaz. Here’s the Christopher Diaz County Judge RFA, and the Constable Chris Diaz finance report. You tell me.

Jack Morman is clearly aware of his status as biggest electoral target of the year. He’s got plenty of money available to him for his race, whoever he winds up running against. Cagle has only the primary to worry about, as his precinct is highly unlikely to be competitive in November. The other countywide offices generally don’t draw much money to their races. I suppose that may change this year, especially in the County Clerk’s race, but first we’re going to need some candidates.

Constables were elected last year, as were Justices of the Peace in Place 1, so what we have on the ballot this time are the JPs in Place 2. According to the listing of judicial candidates that we got at the June CEC meeting, David Patronella and Zinetta Burney have primary opponents, but neither of them have July finance reports on file. Rodrick Rogers, who is listed as a candidates against Republican Jeff Williams in Precinct 5, also has no report. Lucia Bates is a Democrat running in the primary against Don Coffey, while Daryl Smith is a Democrat running against Repubican incumbent Laryssa Korduba Hrncir, who at last report was the last holdout on performing weddings post-Obergefell. I do not know if there has been any change in that status. Whatever the case, there’s not a lot of fundraising in these races.

So that’s what I know for now. It’s possible some of the non-filers will have reports up later, I do see that sometimes. For sure, we should expect to hear of some candidates in the places where we currently have none. If you’ve got some news on that score, please let us know.

Posted in: Election 2018.

EcoHub sues over OneBin failure

All right.

Continuing the saga that has unfolded at City Hall — in which City Council members have said a deal with one company “smelled,” and in which another company, EcoHub, claims Mayor Sylvester Turner snubbed him out of the whole process — EcoHub is now suing the city to find out what happened.

EcoHub had worked for years with former mayor Annise Parker’s administration to set up the One Bin for All Recycling paradigm, and CEO George Gitschel had said he secured millions of dollars in bond funding to build an $800 million facility that would recycle up to 95 percent of all our waste and repurpose it as fuel or other traditional recycling products. But when Turner took over, the deal with Gitschel fell apart — for largely unknown reasons. Turner has refused to provide an explanation beyond the fact that he is “not obligated” to continue with Parker’s vision. The city instead opened up a bidding process for more traditional single-stream recyclers in 2016.

The lawsuit, filed this week, is seeking clarity about how Turner made this decision. Gitschel had hired former KTRK reporter Wayne Dolcefino’s consulting firm to investigate, but in the lawsuit, Gitschel’s attorney says the city has not turned over documents, emails and phone calls that Dolcefino requested under the Texas Public Information Act. The lawsuit asks the court to compel the city to release the documents, and make sure officials are not hiding anything. Gitschel speculates that “improper influence by those who stand to financially benefit the most from the status quo” may have played in a role in why Turner cancelled the One Bin proposal and opened it up instead to traditional single-stream recyclers.

“What we’re hoping to uncover is at least emails between either Turner or folks in his administration and those with whom the city has been corresponding about bids on this contract, just to find out who the mayor’s been supporting and what’s going on at the Solid Waste Department,” said Gitschel’s attorney, Stewart Hoffer. “It just doesn’t make any sense why he would turn down a costless solution in favor of one that will cost a lot of money and has a greater environmental impact than what EcoHub had.”

I guess this is about the recycling contract that’s being rebid, which is whatever. What I’m wondering is how it is that EcoHub thought it had a deal with the city in the first place. As of the end of the Parker administration, there was nothing more than a progress report to show for the project. There was never a contract for City Council to approve. One Bin never came up when the current scaled back deal with Waste Managemend was ratified. One Bin For All was an idea, one that some people thought was great and others thought was ridiculous, it was never anything more than that. Maybe there’s more information to be uncovered in the deal that Mayor Turner tried to get approved. If there is, great, let’s hear it. But even if there is, I’m not sure what EcoHub will do with it.

Posted in: Legal matters, Local politics.

And then there’s the birth certificate issue

Just another problem that would be exacerbated by a bathroom bill.

In order to modify a birth certificate in Texas, the Department of State Health Services requires transgender individuals to present a certified court order stating the recorded sex on a birth certificate should be changed.

But a transgender person’s ability to obtain that court order is largely determined by where they live and their socioeconomic status, according to transgender individuals, advocates and lawyers who have worked with transgender Texans on the process.

Some county judges — even in more liberal urban areas — are less eager than others to grant the court order that’s required by the state, particularly when it comes to children. That forces some transgender individuals to travel to counties like Travis, Bexar or Dallas, where such court orders can be easier to obtain.

It can also be an expensive process. Court filings fees can reach $300 even before adding on attorneys fees or travel requirements. The process can be even more cost-prohibitive for transgender individuals because they must also obtain letters from both a doctor and a mental health provider certifying they are transgender and under their care to present to the court. For some, that also presents a geographic barrier because Texas faces a shortage of doctors and therapists “who do this kind of work,” said Claire Bow, an Austin-area attorney who helps transgender people obtain updated documents.

But for Bow, there’s a bigger flaw with Republicans’ proposals for bathroom restrictions and the expectation that transgender people could immediately take steps to obtain updated documents.

“The important thing to understand is it’s never the first step in the process,” Bow said of amending birth certificates or IDs. Bathroom bills assume that every transgender person has “gone all the way through the process” or have reached the point in treatment at which their doctors and therapists will sign off on the letter needed for court.

“That’s why this is hard,” she added. “Nobody wakes up one day…and changes their sex.”

The outcome of this complex process is that many transgender Texans live with birth certificates that don’t align with their gender identity for years if not their entire lives.

This is not the first time this issue has been brought up. Getting one’s birth certificate amended can be expensive and time-consuming, and if you happen to have been born in the wrong state, legally impossible. One way Republicans could address this issue would be to make it less cumbersome to amend a birth certificate, with some provision for the folks whose home states have no such mechanism. Of course, if they were inclined to do that, it might lead them to the conclusion that the bathroom bill is ridiculous and harmful and serves no purpose.

Posted in: That's our Lege.

Dan Patrick hates Texas’ cities

I have so many things to say about this.

City governments, particularly those led by Democrats, are to blame for problems nationwide, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said during a nationally televised interview Friday.

“People are happy with their governments at their state level, they’re not with the city,” said Patrick, a Republican, in an interview with Fox Business Network. He was responding to a question about gubernatorial races.

“Our cities are still controlled by Democrats,” he added. “And where do we have all our problems in America? Not at the state level run by Republicans, but in our cities that are mostly controlled by Democrat mayors and Democrat city council men and women. That’s where you see liberal policies. That’s where you see high taxes. That’s where you see street crime.”

1. Just as a reminder, the Mayors of Fort Worth and El Paso are Republicans, and the previous Mayor of Dallas ran in the Republican primary for US Senate in 2012. Among the Mayors who signed a letter to Greg Abbott complaining about his anti-city agenda are those of Amarillo, Arlington, Denton, Frisco, Irving, Lubbock, McKinney, Plano, and Sugar Land.

2. Also as a reminder, the five biggest metro areas in Texas are among the best economic performers in the state, with the Austin/Round Rock MSA leading the way. Yes, that’s the entire metro area and not just the city of Austin, but let’s be honest – if Austin weren’t the thriving economic hub that it is, Round Rock would still be the sleepy little rural town it was as recently as 1990.

3. Is anyone still wondering what our state leadership was going to do once they no longer had a Democratic President to scapegoat? I think this has been obvious for a few months now, but there should not be any doubt if there had been any. I do wonder how vigorous the anti-city jihad would be if Hillary Clinton – clearly the greater evil to them in any equation – had won.

4. For all the attacks on local control that Abbott and Patrick have been leveling so far, there’s nothing stopping them from going whole hog and abolishing the concept of a home rule city, which is what gives cities the authority to write their own ordinances. Indeed, one of Patrick’s pet Angry Old Man Senators – I forget if it was Don Huffines or Bob Hall; they’re both basically the same person – filed a bill this session to do just that. If cities are so lousy at governance and the state is so great at it, then why not just get rid of them and let everything they do now fall to the state, the counties, and the private sector? I’ll bet that would do wonders for the state’s economy.

5. Going back to point #1, Democrats need to figure out how to make more inroads in these more Republican cities. It doesn’t have to be an explicitly partisan thing – the old saw about potholes being neither Democratic nor Republican still means something – just put some effort into identifying and encouraging people who might make good candidates to run. Having such people get elected and do a good job will if nothing else provide local examples of successful Democrats in heavily Republican areas.

6. How many different constituencies can Dan Patrick (and to a slightly lesser extent Greg Abbott) insult and ignore and vilify before he starts to lose a significant level of support? To put it another way, how many members of these “vilified and insulted by Dan Patrick” constituencies will continue to vote for him anyway, and how many will decide that enough is enough? I feel like there needs to be some carefully targeted polling done.

7. Having said all this, I can’t help but feel like I’ve been trolled, and that this whole exercise was the talk radio equivalent of one of those “best/worst cities for x” clickbait stories that no one can seem to resist. If so, then I admit it: You got me, Dan Patrick. Well played. RG Ratcliffe has more.

Posted in: Show Business for Ugly People.

Gina Ortiz Jones

We have our first declared challenger in CD23.

Gina Ortiz Jones

U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, R-Helotes, is getting his first major Democratic challenger for re-election in Texas’ swing 23rd congressional district.

Gina Ortiz Jones, a former Air Force intelligence officer, is entering the race Wednesday, wading into a potentially crowded primary field for a shot at Hurd, who is widely viewed as the most vulnerable Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Jones said she was inspired to come home to San Antonio and run for Congress after witnessing up close the opening months of Donald Trump’s presidency as a staffer in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which operates from within the Executive Office of the President.

“These policies were directly threatening the opportunities” I had growing up, said Jones, a first-generation American. “To me, it was quite clear that I needed to serve my country and my community in a different way.”

A graduate of John Jay High School in San Antonio, Jones attended Boston University on a ROTC scholarship and served in the Air Force from 2003-2006, deploying to Iraq. After a stint in the private sector, she went to work for the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency in 2008, ultimately becoming a special adviser to the deputy director. In November, she moved to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, where she worked until June.

[…]

Although Jones is the first major Democrat to launch a challenge against Hurd for 2018, at least three others are considering a run. They include Judy Canales, a former Obama and Clinton appointee; Jay Hulings, a federal prosecutor from San Antonio; and former U.S. Rep. Pete Gallego, the Alpine Democrat who represented the district from 2013-2015 and unsuccessfully challenged Hurd last year.

You can find a brief bio of Gina Ortiz Jones here; scroll down a bit. I received a press release with a much longer bio after I did my initial draft of this post, so it’s beneath the fold. Her campaign website is here and her campaign Facebook page is here; both are still bare bones, but one presumes that will change shortly.

As for other candidates, Pete Gallego has said he is seriously considering running again, but has yet to take the plunge. Canales and Hulings, I have heard nothing about, and no one has done any fundraising yet. Which is not that big a deal, as there will be plenty of national support for this race, but sooner is always better than later.

Like many other Democrats jumping into these races, Jones looks impressive, and is also younger than I am, which Lord knows we could use more of. She joins MJ Hegar as a veteran who is now a candidate. This could be a very interesting primary, as Gallego (of whom I am very fond) tends to lean towards the centrist side of things. Regardless, I don’t know how you can look at the large and growing crop of solid candidates we have running and not get excited by them.

Continue reading →

Posted in: Election 2018.

Still no word on what Pasadena will do with the redistricting appeal

We’re waiting.

Because the ruling went against the city, Pasadena is required to pay legal costs to attorneys for that group, the Mexican American Legal Defense Education Fund. In addition, the city’s fees to its legal representatives at Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado and Acosta now total approximately $2.8 million as it pursues the appeal.

[…]

The council voted 5-3 on Aug. 1 to pay $45,585 to the Bickerstaff firm, bringing the total paid in legal fees over the last six months to the firm to more than $320,000. The city paid more than $2.5 million before the ruling.

At the Aug. 1 meeting, Councilman Don Harrison broached the topic of a settlement regarding MALDEF’s legal expenses.

“I understand through sources there are negotiations going on with MALDEF, who has requested $1.6 million to settle the lawsuit. We’ve had an executive session to discuss this, and yet we’re still continuing with the appeal,” said Harrison, who joined Sammy Casados and Cody Ray Wheeler in voting against approving the latest payment. “It’s time to settle this matter with MALDEF and get this lawsuit over.”

“We’re working everything we can, and once we get these numbers for sure we will have a council meeting to discuss this,” [Mayor Jeff] Wagner said.

See here for some background. The calculation is that if Pasadena eventually wins the appeal, they only have to pay their own lawyers and won’t owe the plaintiffs’ attorneys a dime. But if they lose, they will not only have paid their own lawyers that much more to keep on this, they’ll also owe attorneys’ fees for the plaintiffs, which will undoubtedly be a lot higher than the $1.6 million they’re apparently offering to take now. It’s almost as if that 2013 redistricting scheme pushed through by former Mayor Johnny Isbell was a really lousy idea that has served to put the city in such a terrible position today. Hindsight, y’all.

Posted in: Legal matters.

Weekend link dump for August 6

A little thought experiment about a shift of power in the Senate.

Chase your dreams, y’all.

“If you’ve been asking why McCain is getting so much credit for this hit job, rather than his two female Republican colleagues without whose “no” votes the bill would have also passed, one of the answers is that he has sought to make himself the fall guy. But it’s true: This was a conspiracy of three. And one thing McCain has in common with Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski is that all three were in an unusually good position to take the blame for killing Obamacare repeal.”

“Which is to say, Trump and his new minion aren’t just colorful personalities, but members of a particular species: the New York douchebag. That’s why Scaramucci may long remain in good standing—as long as he doesn’t break one golden rule.”

How Leslie Neilsen perfectly encapsulates life in the age of Trump.

RIP, Lee May, former All Star who was once traded for Joe Morgan.

“As for impotence, Trump has accomplished nothing beyond conservative judicial appointments. His administration is otherwise a comedy of errors in the exercise of executive power.”

How long is the day on Saturn? Turns out that’s a tricky question.

“it was going super well but there’s some kind of crazed serial killer roaming the grounds right now”

“Now, if you want to talk about new and risky, how about some alternative histories that don’t focus on World War II or the Civil War?”

RIP, Sam Shepard, playwright, actor, author, screenwriter, and director.

“All told, more than a dozen Democratic candidates with science backgrounds have announced their candidacies for Congress or are expected to in the coming months. The boomlet of STEM-based candidates amounts to a minor seismic event in a community where politics and research have traditionally gone together like sodium and water. Trump has been in office just six months, but he’s already done something remarkable—he’s gotten scientists to run for office.”

Now that is what I call burying the hatchet. Well done.

“Anthony Scaramucci is out, but the Mooch jokes are forever”.

Oh, just a newborn calf that looks like Gene Simmons from KISS. No big deal, not a sign of the apocalypse or anything like that. Now, will someone buy the calf a personal computer? That’s what I want to know.

So long, Flash Player. Eventually.

Anyone Can Legally Say, “Eat Shit, Bob!” Good to know.

“In 2017, 52 percent — a majority — of U.S. Muslims believe that society should be accepting of homosexuality, compared to just 34 percent of white evangelicals. Indeed, white evangelicals overall were less tolerant of homosexuality than any subgroup of Muslims that would be expected to be more conservative, including men (42 percent), those who are older (42 percent), those were born outside the United States (49 percent), and those who say their religion is very important to them (47 percent).”

A good discussion about the ethnic diversity of the Roman Empire, and Twitter trolls.

RIP, Jeff Brotman, founder of Costco.

“First of all, it is obvious that Stephen Miller, a senior policy advisor in the White House, is seriously steeped in the culture of white nationalism. He parrots their viewpoints and has adopted their language.”

Posted in: Blog stuff.

How the redistricting case could play out

Michael Li games out how the Texas redistricting litigation may go from the anticipated court ruling to final resolution.

So, in short, Texans could end up with a new set of maps (drawn by the Texas Legislature or drawn by the court or drawn by the legislature and then tweaked/modified by the court). Or the whole process could be put on hold [until] the Supreme Court rules on whether there are underlying violations that require redrawing of the maps.

In any event, maps may not be final until early 2018. That would mean, at a minimum, that candidate filing deadlines for state house and congressional races will be moved (and potentially much angst for those thinking about running for those offices). Depending on how long it takes for the Supreme Court to rule, it is possible that the entire March 2018 Texas primary might have to be moved or, in the alternative, that the primary might be held in two parts – one part for congressional and state house races and one part for everything else).

I jumped ahead to the conclusion in Li’s piece. Go read the whole thing to see how he arrived there. Along the way, he cited this Upshot post about possible outcomes in the Congressional map.

Texas’ defense seems simple. How could it have discriminated in adopting a court-drawn map? The problem: Two of the districts found to be in violation in the April ruling were unchanged on the court-drawn map.

Short of victory, the best case for Texas Republicans might be a ruling confined to those two districts. It would probably cost them one seat in the Austin area, most likely the one belonging to Roger Williams.

But the challenge is far wider.

A third district was found to be in violation in April; it was altered on the temporary map, but only slightly. That district belongs to Will Hurd, already one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the country. He won both of his elections by the margin of the high-turnout Republican suburbs of San Antonio, which were said to dilute the power of the district’s low-turnout Hispanic majority. Without those high-turnout Republican suburbs, Mr. Hurd’s re-election chances would look bleak, especially in what is already shaping up as a tough year for Republicans.

The April decision also left open the possibility that Texas might be required to draw an additional minority opportunity district — where the goal is to give racial or ethnic minorities the sway to elect the candidate of their choice — in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. If that happened, a Republican seat would need to be sacrificed here as well, most likely Joe Barton or Kenny Marchant, or perhaps the district held by Sam Johnson, who is not going to seek re-election.

What would “Armageddon” look like? Well, the likeliest version is the possibility that such changes to a few districts ripple across the map, endangering additional Republican incumbents.

The “Armageddon” scenario was reported on by the Trib in late May, which I blogged about here. The worst case scenario for the Republicans is a loss of six, maybe even seven, seats. That’s unlikely, but the low end is two seats, and that may not be much more probable. We won’t know what the scope may be for a few more weeks, when the court’s ruling comes down, and we may not know for certain until January or February. If you thought the 2012 primaries were fun, just you wait for 2018.

Posted in: Election 2018, Legal matters.

Ethics, schmethics

This little exchange says so much about our weak and insecure Governor.

Rep. Sarah Davis

The fireworks began with a press conference called by GOP Rep. Sarah Davis, chair of the House Committee on General Investigating and Ethics. Davis, flanked by both Democratic and Republican members of the committee, noted that Abbott had made ethics reform an “emergency” priority in the past two regular sessions. Though it’s not currently on the agenda for the special session this summer, she said the need for reform is greater than ever.

As an example, the Houston-area Republican said she is moving forward this week with ethics legislation — including a bill that would close a major loophole allowing state lawmakers during special sessions to hit up contributors for campaign cash at the same time they’re considering legislation that could affect those donors’ interests.

“I think we need to go ahead and close that loophole,” Davis said.

Such fundraising is illegal during regular sessions, under the theory that lawmakers shouldn’t be simultaneously casting votes and taking campaign money. But there is no such ban during these 30-day special sessions called by the governor. House Speaker Joe Straus and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, both Republicans, have voluntarily pledged not to fundraise during this summer’s special session, but Abbott continues to seek donations in email solicitations.

Davis was joined by Rep. Lyle Larson, R-San Antonio, who took a more direct slap at the governor. He said he is again pushing a bill attacking what he calls a “pay for play” system in the governor’s office when it comes to appointments to state boards and commissions.

Larson’s legislation would limit the amount of money an appointee could give a governor. Donors who give more than $2,500 would be ineligible to serve, though Larson said he’s considering raising the amount to $5,000 and putting the effective date as 2022 in a bid to garner Abbott’s support.

Larson said donors who give amounts well into six figures can receive the most prestigious appointments — such as spots on a major university’s board of regents. He said Abbott and his predecessors, both Republican and Democratic, have used appointments to attract huge sums for their campaigns.

“I think it’s imperative that if we control both the legislative and the executive branch of government that we should reform the most egregious ethics violations we’ve got in the state, and that’s where people have to pay large sums of money to get appointed to highly coveted seats,” Larson said.

Speaker Straus agrees with Reps. Davis and Larson. What about Greg Abbott?

Abbott spokesman John Wittman, minutes after the press conference concluded, blasted the two lawmakers in a written statement.

“Instead of working to advance items on the special session agenda that could reform property taxes, fix school finance, increase teacher pay and reduce regulations, Reps. Davis and Larson are showboating over proposals that are not on the Governor’s call,” Wittman said. “Their constituents deserve better.”

So very touchy. Let’s put aside for a moment the fact that these proposals are perfectly reasonable on their merits and focus on the fact that Greg Abbott, who controls the special session agenda, says we can’t talk about them until the Lege passes the entire 20-item agenda he has already laid out. Which means that Abbott is saying that his bizarre obsession with trees and his insistence on overriding all kinds of local ordinances is more important than ethics reform, which by the way was something that he had once labeled an “emergency” priority. I’d be hypersensitive about this, too.

Posted in: That's our Lege.

RIP, Mark White

Former Texas Governor Mark White has passed away.

Mark White

Former Gov. Mark White, who championed education reforms while serving as Texas governor from 1983 to 1987, died Saturday in Houston. He was 77.

Julian Read, a close friend of White who served as press secretary to Gov. John Connally during the 1960s a confidant to many Texas governors since then, confirmed that White suffered a heart attack at his Houston home.

White, who was born March 17, 1940, graduated from Lamar High School and Baylor University. He received his law degree from Baylor Law School in 1965.

[…]

White’s signature legislation as governor was an education bill that implemented Texas’ first-ever statewide testing standards and the well-known “no pass, no play” rule that required students to maintain passing grades to play sports. It also mandated class-size limits and teacher pay raises — legislation that required a tax hike and ultimately cost White a chance at reelection.

I came to Texas in 1984, so White is the first Governor I experienced, though I don’t remember much of his tenure as I was a college student and not paying that much attention to state politics. Everyone I know holds him in high regard, and his education reform legacy lives on to this day. Rest in peace, Mark White. The Trib and RG Ratcliffe have more.

Posted in: The great state of Texas.

Saturday video break: Sex

Let’s get right down to it, shall we? Here’s The 1975:

Gotta say, as much as I love the extravagance of 1970s and 1980s videos, I really appreciate ones where we just see the band or singer in a natural setting doing their thing, with no effects or artsiness or other frippery. Just musicians making music, as God intended it. Helps if the song is good too, but just that form is worth watching.

And just to prove my affection for the other form, here’s Berlin:

The full title of that song is “Sex (I’m A)”, so technically they’re not the same name. But it was worth it to see roast beef sliced in such a sensuous fashion, wasn’t it? Of course it was.

Posted in: Music.

House passes school finance bills

I doubt they’ll meet a different fate than they did in the regular session, but kudos anyway.

Rep. Dan Huberty

The Texas House on Friday passed a package of bills that would put $1.8 billion into public schools and help out struggling small, rural school districts.

House members voted 130-12 to approve the lower chamber’s main piece of school finance legislation, House Bill 21, just as they did during the regular session. The House also voted 131-11 to pass House Bill 30, which would fund the school finance bill by putting $1.8 billion into public schools. Once the House gives the measures final approval, they will head to the Senate.

The funds cited in the legislation would come from deferring a payment to public schools from fiscal year 2019 to 2020, and would allow an increase in the base funding per student from $5,140 to $5,350 statewide.

[…]

The House Public Education Committee’s chairman, state Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, the author of HB 21, has pushed his bill as a preliminary step to fixing a beleaguered system for allocating money to public schools.

“You cannot have property tax reform unless you have school finance reform. That is just a fact,” he said Friday. “We have the time to get this done. We just have to have the will to get this done.”

HB 21 would increase the base per-student funding the state gives to school districts, in part by increasing funding for students who are dyslexic and bilingual. It would also gradually remove an existing financial penalty for school districts smaller than 300 square miles, which was originally intended to encourage them to consolidate.

[…]

The House voted 67-61 Friday against approving House Bill 22, a separate measure that would have continued ASATR for two years before letting it expire in September 2019. Some school districts have warned they might have to close without the program, which totaled about $400 million this year.

See here for the first go-round on HB21, and here for the ASATR story. I don’t expect anything to happen with any of this, but I suppose a surprise is possible. The House and the Senate are on such different pages that it seems unlikely in the extreme, though.

Posted in: That's our Lege.

Firefighters complain about petition counting process

Oh, good Lord.

Mayor Sylvester Turner

Houston firefighters are accusing Mayor Sylvester Turner of standing between them and a voter-approved pay raise by failing to ensure a petition they submitted last month is certified in time to appear on the November ballot.

Turner rejected any suggestion that he has involved himself in the City Secretary’s effort to verify their petition, and his office on Thursday said an offer by the fire union to cover any staffing costs needed to count their signatures is being examined as a possible attempt to improperly influence a public official.

[…]

Houston Professional Fire Fighters Association Local 341 president Marty Lancton accused the mayor of seeking to run out the clock, and said the speed with which firefighters gathered the required 20,000 signatures shows that voters want a say on the matter quickly.

“The mayor has the ability to provide Anna Russell with the resources with which to count this. He has not done it,” said Lancton. “I’m simply trying to find a way to get these counted. Firefighters are just asking for fair treatment and for there to be a resolution.”

The mayor dismissed the criticism.

“She’s the one who’s doing the counting, she verifies the signatures. That’s the process,” Turner said. “No one runs the city secretary’s shop but the city secretary.”

[…]

Accusations aside, Turner said that he is proceeding as if the item will reach a November vote, and has worked to get his message out by appearing on radio programs and discussing the issue publicly. The annual cost of the proposal, he said, could be “well north of $60 million.”

Russell, for her part, said neither the mayor nor anyone from his office has spoken to her about the matter. The process of verifying signatures, she said, must be completed in the spare minutes between her staff’s daily tasks of preparing ordinances, motions, contracts and the council agenda.

My head hurts. Why don’t we just assume that Anna Russell is going to do the job she’s been doing since God was in short pants and give her some room? If for some reason she can’t get it done in time for the filing deadline for November, then get it done for next May. Am I missing something here?

David Feldman, a former city attorney who is representing the fire union, said Russell should make an exception in this instance because he views the pension-related petition she now is reviewing as irrelevant.

That petition, which was submitted in April, calls for all city employees hired beginning next year to be given pensions similar to 401(k)s rather than traditional “defined benefit” pensions. Turner’s pension reform bill that passed the Legislature this year, however, specified what pension new hires would receive, Feldman said, and state law trumps local charters.

“If, in fact, they have 20,000 signatures and she certifies it, it can’t go on a ballot because it’s an unlawful measure,” Feldman said. “That’s where the tipping of the scales comes into play. That communication can be made to her. It obviously has not been made to her.”

Bernstein said Feldman’s reading is wrong. He pointed to a similar case out of Galveston in which the court ruled that a city secretary had a “ministerial duty” to validate a petition and forward it to the City Council, notwithstanding her view that its content conflicted with existing laws.

State law “does not give the City Secretary any discretionary duties,” a state appellate court held in that case. “Any complaints about the proposed amendment’s validity will be decided only if the voters approve the proposed charter amendment.”

Feldman stepped into the anti-HERO petition counting efforts in 2015, insisting that they needed to be checked for fraudulent signatures after Russell had certified that there were enough of them. Seemed like a reasonable argument at the time, but as we know the Supreme Court did not buy it, on grounds of those “magisterial duties” which dictated that she count ’em and that was that. And to answer my own question above, the one thing that could prevent the firefighters’ referendum from getting a vote in May would be having some other charter amendment on the ballot this fall. I had been wondering about that other petition effort, since the originator of it has since said the passage of the pension reform bill – the same one that has the firefighters so upset now – made her effort unnecessary. But if they still need to be counted, then I don’t know what happens next. Like I said, my head hurts.

Posted in: Local politics.

Marilyn Burgess to announce for District Clerk

Marilyn Burgess

In addition to a large slate of judicial offices, there are four countywide executive offices on the ballot next year. Democrats in Harris County have nearly all of the judicial races covered, and Diane Trautman has been in the race for County Clerk since early in the year. We are still awaiting candidates for County Judge and County Treasurer, but as of this weekend we have a contestant for Harris County District Clerk: Marilyn Burgess.

District Clerk is a position that’s all about organization and operations. Its job duties include recording the actions and the judgments of the district courts; transmitting the orders of the district courts to the authorities responsible for their execution; and assuming all other duties assigned by the presiding judge of a court, which includes things like bringing in people for jury duty. It’s not really political in the way that (for example) County Clerk and Tax Assessor are, but it is a constitutional office and it has a lot of important responsibilities.

Burgess is a CPA by profession, and spent four years as the Executive Director of the Texas PTA. She was a candidate for Harris County Department of Education in Precinct 4 in 2016, receiving 45% of the vote in that Republican area. She will have a formal announcement of her candidacy shortly. In the meantime, her campaign webpage is here; her campaign Facebook page is not ready yet. It’s certainly possible someone else may jump into this race – it’s still just August – but for now we at least have one more office covered.

Posted in: Election 2018.

Friday random ten – Are you sure about this?

I don’t know, are you?

1. Are We The Waiting – Green Day
2. Are We There Yet? – Trout Fishing In America
3. Are You Gonna Be My Girl – JET
4. Are You Gonna Move It For Me? – The Donnas
5. Are You Kidding Around? – Samantha Shelton
6. Are You Lonely For Me Baby – Andrew Strong
7. Are You Lonesome Tonight? – Elvis Presley
8. Are You Ready For The Country? – Neil Young
9. Are You Ready For The Fallout? – Fastball
10. Are You Ready? – Pacific Gas & Electric

I don’t know why only seven of these ten songs have question marks in their titles. They’re clearly all interrogatives, so you’d think the question mark would be de rigeur, but apparently not. Maybe that affects how they’re pronounced, too, with no uptalk at the end. I may be overthinking this a little.

Posted in: Music.

Halfway through the session

The House is doing House things, and that’s fine.

Rep. Joe Straus

Brushing aside concerns that they are not moving swiftly enough to enact Gov. Greg Abbott’s 20-point agenda, Texas House members opened the second half of the special session Wednesday with a flurry of activity Wednesday.

“We made good progress, and we’re only half the way through,” House Speaker Joe Straus told the American-Statesman.

“I’ve been spending my time, the first half of the 30-day session, trying to get the House in a place to consider the items that the governor has placed on the agenda,” said Straus, a San Antonio Republican. “We work more slowly than the Senate does because we listen to people and we try to get the details right. And so the House committees have been meeting and have shown some good progress, moving many of the items that are on the call.”

[…]

Straus has indicated he opposes a measure — favored by Patrick — that would pre-empt schools and local jurisdictions from making their own transgender friendly bathroom rules.

But, its sponsor, Rep. Ron Simmons, R-Carrollton, said he considered that bill an “outlier” — the only one he knows of that Straus explicitly opposes, “and so it’s not surprising to me that that has not moved expeditiously.”

Simmons said there had been an effort to discourage members to sign on to his bill and so he only had about 50 members willing to do so, far fewer than in the regular session.

Of his other bill on school choice for special needs students — also part of Abbott’s agenda — Simmons said, “I’m not sure it will get voted out of committee.” He said he holds out a faint hope that it might advance if there is some “grand bargain” on education.

“The governor wants school finance and we’re going to do that; we’re going to pass our plan on Friday,” said Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, chairman of the Public Education Committee. “I think it’s very clear that the House has not agreed on the voucher issue, but we have a solution to help special needs students.”

“The House is doing what it should do, which is being deliberative, thoughtful and being sure that legislation that we would pass is sound policy that would benefit the citizens of the state of Texas,” said Rep. Byron Cook, R-Corsicana, chairman of the State Affairs Committee. “The House is not built for speed.”

“This is the House,” said Rep. Craig Goldman, R-Fort Worth, who chairs the House Republican Caucus Policy Committee. “We will use all 30 days. There’s plenty of time.”

Goldman said it looks like the bill he is carrying for the governor to pre-empt local cellphone ordinances is unlikely to make it out of committee.

“Nothing nefarious,” he said; there’s just too much opposition from local police and elected officials who hold great sway with House members.

Imagine that, listening to stakeholders. Who knew? The House will pass more bills, some of which will be amenable to the Senate and some of which will not. Expect to see a lot of gamesmanship, passive aggressiveness, and the occasional bit of decent policymaking, though that latter item is strictly optional.

Posted in: That's our Lege.

Republican voters are “meh” on the bathroom bill

From the inbox:

The Texas Association of Business conducted surveys in five GOP-controlled legislative districts across the state the week of July 24th.

“Texas business has long opposed the bathroom bill because it is unnecessary and will have significant negative economic impact on Texas.  The significance of these surveys, is the voice of individual Republican primary voters echoing the business perspective with over 60% of the opposing respondents saying that the bill is unnecessary and distracts from the real issues facing Texas today,” said Jeff Moseley, CEO of the Texas Association of Business.

The purpose of the surveys was to test general voter sentiments on a range of issues, including views on the so-called ‘Bathroom Bill’ legislation.

“There was remarkably little variation from district-to- district and the cumulative statewide results mirrored the individual district results. The number of interviews (1,500) was very large and we are quite confident that the combined results are a very accurate reflection of Republican Primary voter sentiments on this issue,” said political consultant and pollster Joe Counter. “The survey results were essentially the same in every region with overwhelming opposition and/or indifference to the legislation.”

The districts represented a cross-section of districts from around the state: SD8 in Collin County in North Texas, SD22 in Central Texas, HD15 in Montgomery County North of Houston, HD106 in Denton County in North Texas, and HD136 Northwest of Austin.

The surveys were conducted by Counter Consulting in Plano, Texas. Each of the legislative surveys was an n=300 with a margin of error (MOE) of +/-5.77%.

That sounds promising, but it’s also very vague. I mean, we don’t even know from this what the wording of the questions and responses were. So I emailed the person who sent out that release and asked for more data. This is what I received in response.

To: Jeff Moseley
FM: Joe Counter
DT: July 31, 2017
RE: Legislative Surveys / Bathroom Bill Results

Counter Consulting (in conjunction with Conquest Communications in Richmond, VA) conducted five surveys the Week of July 24 th in GOP-held legislative districts on behalf of the Texas Association of Business. The surveys sought the opinions of ‘likely Republican Primary voters’ on a host of issues including the so-called ‘Bathroom Bill’. Each survey was an n=300 with a MOE of +/- 5.77%.

The districts represented a cross-section from around the state: SD8 in Collin County in North Texas, SD22 in Central Texas, HD15 in Montgomery County North of Houston, HD106 in Denton County in North Texas, and HD136 Northwest of Austin.

As you will see from the results and topline/crosstab sheets related to those questions, there was very little variation in the results from district-to- district or in the cumulative totals (which included 1,500 completed interviews). While these cumulative results cannot be assigned a MOE (that would normally be around 2% for an overall sample size this large), it is safe to say given the similar results in the different districts, that these views do in fact reflect those of ‘likely GOP voters’ statewide.

Specifically, two questions were asked about the ‘bathroom bill’ legislation.

Q. The Texas Governor has called a Special Session to address issues that he felt went unresolved in the Regular Session. Among these is the so-called ‘Bathroom Bill’ for which there are a number of competing versions. Can you tell me which of the below statements comes closest to what you think will happen if this legislation is passed?

a. It will make Texas a better, more pro-family state.

b. Texas families will suffer from immediate job loss due to discrimination being legalized in the minds of many corporate leaders who will take their businesses elsewhere.

c. Nothing much will change—Texas already has laws to punish people who misbehave in bathrooms and public place.

d. I don’t really have an opinion on this.

Results:

  • a minority (25%) of likely GOP voters are in favor of a bathroom bill passing
  • a slightly smaller percentage (20%) cite ‘negative ramifications’ from job loss due to perceived discriminatory laws
  • a plurality (40%) feel ‘nothing much will change’ if some version of the bathroom bill is passed

A follow-up question was asked of the three-quarters of respondents who were NOT in favor of the legislation.

Q. What would you say is the main reason why you oppose the so-called ‘Bathroom Bill”?

a. It is a discriminatory law.

b. If passed, it will cause our economy to suffer, as there is evidence that some businesses will relocate out of Texas, some out-of-state organizations will stop coming to Texas for their conventions, and there are threats that major sporting events would be moved out of Texas.

c. This law is a distraction from the real issues that Texans face, as Texas law already punishes people who harass or assault people in bathrooms.

d. Unsure

Results:

  • only 12% cited ‘discriminatory concerns’ as the reason they are opposed to the legislation
  • only 12% cited ‘economic repercussions’ as the reason they are opposed to the legislation
  • the overwhelming percentage (61%) stated that the “law is a distraction from the real issues facing the state”

You can see the tables in the linked document. I think the key to understanding this is in how one interprets the plurality “nothing much will change” response. One could take that to mean that the respondent thinks the bathroom bill is such common sense that who could possibly find it objectionable, or that what is being proposed is so weak as to be meaningless, or that they agree with the assertion about existing laws and thus find the whole exercise to be a waste of time. Or maybe it’s just a bit of good old fashioned denial. I think the near-equal amounts of clear support and opposition, coupled with this large if muddled middle ground, suggests that if nothing else there isn’t much of a burning desire among Republican primary voters for a bathroom bill, contra Dan Patrick’s claims. But one could also say that a sizeable majority of GOP voters think either nothing bad will happen or Texas will benefit from passing a bathroom bill. There’s plenty of room for competing claims.

That said, this is a decent template for peeling away voters who are not already onboard with the idea. For some, you can play up the negative consequences, and for the others you can stress how out of touch Patrick and Abbott and their minions are. That’s a strategy that could work in a primary as well as in November. If the TAB wants a better Legislature in 2019, this is a roadmap for them on how to achieve it. The rest of us can and should take note, too.

Posted in: That's our Lege.

Religious groups get into the SB4 fight

Good.

For the first time, religious groups have filed court briefs against the so-called sanctuary cities ban in Senate Bill 4, entering the fray in a lawsuit that seeks to prevent the implementation of the law, which they say will harm their faith communities.

The Episcopal Diocese of Texas, numerous individual religious leaders and a state interfaith organization asked the federal court in San Antonio on Sunday to consider their opposition to SB 4 when deciding on a request for an injunction that would prevent the law from being enforced beginning Sept. 1.

“SB 4 is contrary to the moral imperative that we love our neighbor, welcome the immigrant and care for the most vulnerable among us,” Bishop C. Andrew Doyle of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas said in a news release. “This law represents an anti-immigrant agenda that is born out of fear and promoted out of a sense of privilege, jeopardizing justice for everyone.”

[…]

Leading up to SB 4’s passage, more than 200 religious leaders, including Doyle, participated in protests and legislative hearings that culminated in the passage of SB 4. However, the court filings Sunday marked the first time religious groups had joined the court battle.

Six bishops from the Episcopal Diocese along with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Methodist Church and Texas Impact filed a friend of the court brief against SB 4.In total, they represent at least 142,000 parishioners and 461 congregations in Texas, according to the filing.

Locally, Austin City Council Member Sabino “Pio” Renteria has said he has seen attendance at his church drop sharply since ICE conducted enforcement raids this year in Texas and lawmakers passed SB 4.

The filing states that it would hamper religious groups’ efforts to help new immigrants seek assistance, citing a United Nations study that found 64 percent of female immigrants who enter the country illegally are fleeing violence, the suit said.

It also states that the law would allow “rogue” officers to commit wanton racial and ethnic profiling.

The amicus brief was filed in the San Antonio court case, which this story suggests will be the primary one over the pre-emptive lawsuit filed by Ken Paxton in Austin. Bravo to these religious leaders for their courage and compassion. May many more follow their example.

Posted in: La Migra, Legal matters.

Fort Bend DA to retire

The end of an era, and an opportunity for change.

Fort Bend County District Attorney John Healey announced Friday that he will not seek re-election, marking an end to what will be 26 years in office, according to a news release.

Healey said he will retire at the end of his term in 2018 to spend time with his wife. He will be a few weeks shy of 64, he said in an interview.

“I’ve often said retirement is too often wasted on the elderly,” he said. “There’s a whole other phase of life that I want to be able to enjoy with my family.”

Healey first took office by judicial appointment Nov. 18, 1992, when Fort Bend County was a far cry from the bustling county it has become. He presided over the growth of the office from what was then 16 prosecutors to what is now 64, according to the release.

[…]

Healey won in 2014 with 58 percent of the vote. His term will end Dec. 31, 2018.

First, let me say that I wish DA Healy well in his retirement. From a quality of life perspective, I think he has the right idea. Politically speaking, this is a big opportunity for Democrats in Fort Bend, as it is surely easier to win an open seat rather than knock off an incumbent with no obvious demerits. Finding a candidate would be the first order of business; former two-term County Commissioner Richard Morrison comes to my mind, but I’m just speculating idly. Fort Bend Democrats have other races of interest next year – HD26, Commissioners Court Precinct 4, the other countywide offices; big parts of SD17 and CD22 are also in Fort Bend – but this is a definite prize. I’m sure it will draw serious interest.

Posted in: Election 2018.

The economic impact of SB4

It could be big.

Representatives from Texas’ business, local government and higher education sectors argued Tuesday that the state’s new immigration-enforcement law, which is slated to take effect Sept. 1, could do billions of dollars in damage to the Texas economy.

Using data from the 2015 American Community Survey and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Reform Immigration for Texas Alliance — a group made up of 40 state-based immigrant and civil rights groups — estimated during a Tuesday press conference that the state stands to lose roughly $223 million in state and local taxes and more than $5 billion in gross domestic product under Senate Bill 4.

The law, which was signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in May and seeks to outlaw “sanctuary” jurisdictions that don’t cooperate with federal immigration officials, would also allow local police officers to ask about a person’s immigration status when they are detained — not just when they are charged with a crime.

“We estimate those costs as they relate to jobs, earnings, taxes and GDP if 10 percent of undocumented immigrants were to leave Texas,” the group said, calling that 10 percent figure a conservative estimate. The group analyzed the top 10 industries that benefit from undocumented labor and used Harvard University economist George Borjas‘ undocumented population analysis in its research, according to the methodology outlined in the study.

[…]

The economic argument isn’t a new one for opponents of the law; several Democratic state lawmakers tried and failed to convince their colleagues of its merit during this spring’s regular legislative session. State Democrats also called for an update to a study released in 2006 by former Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn. That analysis showed that undocumented immigrants who lived in Texas in 2005 added $17.7 billion to the state’s economy.

In a statement Tuesday, representatives from local chambers of commerce at the news conference went after the lawmakers who championed the legislation, calling them dishonorable.

“Each of you standing with us have a big job to do,” said Ramiro Cavazos, the CEO of San Antonio’s Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. “And that it is to protect this economy for our children and our grandchildren.”

The Houston Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Bilateral African American Chamber, the United Chamber of Commerce Corpus Christi and the Rio Grande Valley Chamber of Commerce were among those represented at the news conference.

The Chron adds some details.

Paul Puente, executive secretary of the Houston Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council, said many undocumented construction workers are already packing up and leaving with their families to neighboring states such as Oklahoma and Louisiana ahead of SB4’s implementation on Sept. 1.

An analysis of data from the U.S. Census, the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that if 10 percent of undocumented immigrants leave Texas, the state would forfeit about $190.7 million in federal tax revenue and $223.5 million more in state and local taxes.

The disappearance of those estimated 95,000 undocumented workers would also result in nearly $2.9 billion in lost wage earnings. The analysis also found that the state would lose an additional 70,000 jobs dependent on undocumented consumers, with an estimated $2.4 billion more in lost wages.

The researchers said the ripple effect throughout the economy could reach between $9.2 billion and $13.8 billion.

That’s a lot of money, and it doesn’t include things like tourism and conferences. You can dispute the figures if you’d like, but the broader point is that maybe it’s a bad idea to pass a law like this that so many people think with justification will hurt themselves, those close to them, and the state as a whole. There was plenty of testimony to this effect in the hearings, from law enforcement and religious groups and business interests and just plain folks, and there’s the lived experience of other states who have done this. It was just that the Republican majority refused to listen. And that job that Ramiro Cavazos mentioned that we all have to do includes remembering who supported and who opposed this terrible law when the next elections roll around. The Current has more.

Posted in: La Migra.

Can we share these lanes?

Metro is rethinking how the light rail lines run in parts of downtown.

Traffic woes and collisions along the newest light-rail lines in downtown have Metro leaders toying with the idea of backpedaling on their promise not to close parts of the lanes to cars.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority’s new Green and Purple lines in downtown that run eastbound along Capitol and westbound along Rusk for about a mile continue to confuse traffic signal timing and drivers. The trains and vehicles have had several collisions in these shared lanes as drivers make turns, as well as enter and exit parking garages for downtown buildings.

Now Metro is – albeit cautiously – considering ideas to close the lanes to vehicular traffic where practical.

“There is zero intent to change this without getting a lot of input with the stakeholders,” board member Christof Spieler said, while acknowledging some changes may be needed to improve timing and safety for trains, drivers and pedestrians.

City officials, downtown business leaders and drivers, however, remain skeptical that dedicating the lanes to trains is going to be a solution.

“(Former Metropolitan Transit Authority CEO) Frank Wilson promised the community and the City Council that these would ‘never’ be train-only lanes in order to get agreement to allow them to operate downtown,” said Jeff Weatherford, deputy director of Houston Public Works in charge of traffic operations and maintenance.

I guess I’m not surprised there are issues with the trains sharing a lane with car traffic, but I did not know there was such resistance to the idea of separating the two. I suppose the entrances to and exits from downtown parking garages, which by the way can snarl traffic pretty effectively themselves, are a major obstacle to any kind of change. I’m sure there are some minor tweaks that can be made to improve things a bit, but more than that seems unlikely.

Posted in: Planes, Trains, and Automobiles.

Fifth Circuit sets bail hearing

Mark your calendars.

Harris County will have another chance to defend its embattled cash bail system this fall in a lawsuit brought by indigent defendants who languished in jail for days because they couldn’t afford money bail.

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced Tuesday it has set oral arguments for the week of Oct. 2 in New Orleans. Each side will have a half hour to argue before a panel of three judges, officials said. The panel of judges will likely then take its decision under advisement, according to lawyers familiar with typical proceedings.

[…]

The county appealed the April 28 injunction issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas, in which she found that Harris County’s cash bail system discriminated against poor misdemeanor defendants.

“Cases get overturned,” said First Assistant County Attorney Robert Soard of the oral argument. “We’ll be given another opportunity to point out to the fifth circuit where we disagree with Judge Rosenthal.”

[…]

Harris County has spent $4 million on outside counsel to defend the case, according to latest county estimates, with a high-powered D.C. lawyer firm now on retainer.

You know where I stand on this. I just wonder how much more fight the county will have if they lose at this level, or even if they just fail to get an injunction against the current order. Do they plan to take this to the Supreme Court if necessary? How much influence is the Attorney General’s office exerting on this? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Posted in: Legal matters.

Texas blog roundup for the week of July 31

The Texas Progressive Alliance puts skinny lattes over skinny repeals as it brings you this week’s roundup.

Continue reading →

Posted in: Blog stuff.