Your turn! What do you think?

Feeling lucky punk?

All 31 newly elected Texas Senators held a lottery last week to determine their electoral fate in the next two years.  What?  You thought they were just elected in the 2012 election cycle to a four year term?

They were—in theory.

Every state’s legislative evolution is unique.  Under the U.S. Constitution and following the decennial census, every state senate district is redrawn to ensure the state’s population is distributed approximately equally between districts. In the first election following the enumeration in the census (the counting of the population), all state senate seats come up for election.  What that means for 47 states is that Senators serve their designated term according to state law (which varies by state).  In a minority of states (Arkansas, Illinois, and Texas), the state senate terms are staggered and so Senate procedures randomly assign term lengths after each reapportionment—the redistribution of representation in a legislative body.   So after the first election cycle immediately following reapportionment, those elected in the three states use the device of random assignment to determine who serves for two years and who serves for four years after reapportionment.

How do they decide who serves what?   You take your chances, that’s how.

At the beginning of the legislative session, each senator draws an envelope with a number on a slip of paper sealed inside. Odd means you serve for four years, even means you serve for two.  So there were disappointed Texas Senators last week after they drew even numbers, including Wendy Davis (D-Ft. Worth) who had a hard 2012 election battle and Tea Party darling Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels) who will face a tough challenge during a gubernatorial election year. Just unlucky I guess.

And speaking of lucky, looks like marijuana may catch a lucky break in Texas with bills that are being introduced which allow for the decriminalization of penalties for persons who are caught with marijuana.   Decriminalizing does not mean that the behavior is legal, it only means that the penalties associated with the criminal activity have been dramatically reduced.   One bill—originally proposed over ten years ago—limits the penalties for persons who are caught with marijuana, but who have a doctor’s recommendation that marijuana should be used for medical purposes.  In essence, that creates an “affirmative defense” (meaning that you are saying “yes I engaged in illegal behavior, BUT I have a reason for why I did it.”   Aother bill introduced lowers the penalties associated with recreational marijuana possession.  Neither bill legalizes medical (or recreational) usage, but both would help reduce some of the law enforcement costs associated with more minor drug usage (which costs Texas about $75 million per year).

And finally it looks likes guns may get lucky too. The Campus Carry bill that failed in the last two legislative cycles looks like its prospects are much better after Sandy Hook.  Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst also proposed this week that K-12 teachers be given firearms training. Pro-gun rights groups hope this legislative session will expand gun access on college campuses and point to the shooting at Lone Star College in Houston where three people were injured as an example of why guns are necessary.

So you gotta ask yourself, “are you feeling lucky punk”?

Data drilling

Data drilling

1) First find who your state senator and state representative is for the 83^rd Texas legislature (2013-2014).

2) Examine the data from the 83^rd Texas legislature regarding “Lawmaker Explorer”.  Scroll down to find your Texas House of Representative member and your Texas Senator. Are they Republican (red) or Democrat (blue)?

3) For your House of Representatives & Senator find each of the following:

a) What is their profession? (Industry)

b) What committees do they sit on?

c) Where were they educated?

Your turn! What do you think?

Business as usual, or maybe not so much

Now that the legislature is back in session, attention has focused on our citizen legislature (legislators have other jobs in addition to their role as representative).  In contrast, a professional legislature (where elected officials serve full-time, typically year round) is thought to be more like a job, so presumably officials put their own personal, economic well-being second.

Texas legislators are being criticized because they have to rely on other sources of income to support themselves (the annual salary is only $7200 per year), and some say that this leads legislators to engage unethical or even illegal spending of campaign monies, and additionally, it puts legislators in a position to find all sorts of financial incentives to make sure that their “real job” is turning a  profit.

The Texas Ethics Commission is getting ready to do a periodic legislative review which allows the office to examine key policies and revise, amend, or abolish provisions so government can work more effectively. The Commission may look more closely this time around to see if representatives are fulfilling their duties.  Political scientists typically view the role of a legislator as either that of a delegate (an official who ignores their own expert judgment about policies in favor of pursuing policies that are currently popular) or a trustee (someone who supports policies that may be unpopular, but which the official believes promotes the general welfare).  In the case of Texas, the concern is that legislator are doing neither, but taking actions based on personal interest doing ”bidness as usual”.

And speaking of where it has not been business as usual, take a look at Governor Rick Perry’s top level policy assignments. Perry has been slammed for his position on abortion and women’s health care, leading some to raise concern about support for women in the Governor’s Office, but that may be incorrect.

Even though Texas is a weak governor system (meaning that the Governor does not have extensive powers and authority), the governor’s office does hire a number of staff level positions—especially in areas where Governor is seeking top level advisors to work on policy initiatives. Through the appointment process (the mechanism by which the Governor can appoint the persons he wants to key positions), it seems Governor Perry can be considered rather progressive.  Both his chief of staff and deputy chief of staff (the two top advisers to the governor on policy issues) are women, over 60% of his office employees are female, and most importantly, about two-thirds of his senior policymaking personnel are women.  Contrast that with a recent report lambasting President Obama because his inner circle of advisers are disproportionately white and male.

Take that Washington—your gender gap is showing.

Your turn! What do you think?

Uphill Gun Battles

This week President Obama introduced comprehensive proposals  which he will fight for to pass tougher gun regulations. The President used his executive order power (the ability to issue an order having the force of law which does not require Congressional action) including measures about mental health and school safety, pushing Congress to reinstate the ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004, restricting ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds, and expanding background checks to cover current exemptions for private gun sales such as those as gun shows.

Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association fired back against the 23 presidential actions questioning whether the president was using the Sandy Hook shootings to manipulate the anti-gun interest groups.  Governor Perry took even more shots at the President’s proposals by calling for prayers to stop gun violence and saying that he was disgusted by anti-gun legislation.

No doubt the President in “going public” was trying to use the media to mobilize support for his policy positions, but while a number other states are passing stricter gun regulatory measures, Texas is taking an alternate direction and targeting different measures that expand gun access for owners.  Some of the more prominent measures include allowing guns on college campuses, letting public school teachers carry guns, and relaxing conceal and carry training hours from 10 hours to 4 hours.

Keep this in your sights because it’s going to be a long fight.

 

Your turn! What do you think?

Session is on, is there a Speaker in the House?

Session is on, is there a Speaker in the House?

Game on today as the House and the Senate introduced their versions and visions of what the budget should be.  Strikingly, the Senate has proposed a leaner budget for once.  The Senate has posted a $186.8 billion budget, while the House came in slightly higher with a $187.7 billion budget.  The real question is how willing will some legislators be about restoring the $5.4 in cuts made in the 2011 session.  Before anyone does anything however, both chambers have a little speed bump because they need to pass an almost $6 billion supplemental budget (one which covers pending expenditures against the state) to deal with bills from the last legislative cycle.

And speaking of speed bumps, Joe Straus  (R-San Antonio) seems to have recovered from challenges to his leadership, and he was re-elected Speaker of the House, but he still has a rough road ahead.   As Speaker, his main duties are to conduct meetings of the House, appoint committees, and enforce the House Rules.  Or maybe not because it looks like Straus’ battles are not over.

Each new biennium (the 140 day legislative session that meets in odd-numbered years) the Texas House elects its leader for the session.  It’ virtually guaranteed it will be a Republican given 95 Republican-55 Democrat split, but the question often becomes whether there will be an internal party challenger (someone who is not the incumbent in the position).  Straus—a third term incumbent (existing holder of a political office)—seemed  to be the choice after the 2012 elections, until David Simpson (R-Longview) and Tea Party supporter accused Straus of not being conservative enough.  Simpson put forward a challenge, but at the last minute pulled out right before the vote.

Simpson may have had other goals in mind.  He wants to alter the rules of the game and limit the speaker’s power by altering the Speaker’s appointment authority and the rules governing procedures if a member opposes House leadership.  One of the more controversial proposals mandates that if a bill has 76 (51%) or more co-authors, the Calendars Committee must send it to floor debate within seven to 10 days-effectively allowing a bill to bypass the regular process.  The committee appointment power is also important because the chairs of the committee can kill legislation by never having it considered by the committee.  That’s critical because the Speaker makes appointments and expects his committee leaders to help pass his agenda, but that won’t happen if Simpson and conservatives who want to see a decentralization of power are able to change the rules.

Get ready, it’s game on.

Your turn! What do you think?