Your turn! What do you think?

Buster and bluster

It was a historic moment on the floor of the Texas Senate this week as Sen. Wendy Davis filibustered (prolonged speechmaking for the purpose of delaying legislative action) to stop SB 5 which would have radically altered access to abortion.  The proposal would have banned most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and required abortion facilities to meet the standards of an ambulatory surgical center.  Having passed in the Texas House earlier in the week, it looked almost certain that 37 of the state’s 42 facilities providing abortions, including many operated by Planned Parenthood would be closing.

That is until Senator Davis tried talking the bill to death and a broad coalition of grass-roots groups (organizations which rely on activist citizen participation) eventually yelled the bill to death.   A number of liberal organizations came together Tuesday night to create such a racket in the Texas Senate chamber that the bill could not be properly voted on.

Senator Davis had been successful in her filibuster until Republicans successfully employed parliamentary maneuvers to end it. At that point, groups supporting pro-choice advocates including local Occupy movement groups, the International Socialist Organization, and GetEqual Texas, a gay rights group had members at the protest began chanting so loudly that business could not be conducted on the Senate floor. Finally at 12:03 a.m. (the special session ended at midnight), the vote was finally taken, but it was too late.

There was a bit of confusion when it was reported that the legislation had actually passed in time to meet the deadline, but Republicans had to recant later when it was discovered that the date time stamp had been changed.  After a meeting that lasted until 3 am, the bill was officially declared dead on arrival.

Another law that was killed this week was section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (1965) which mandates preclearance for all states which are required to comply because they have a past history of discrimination. As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week in two Texas cases, one involving voter identification laws, and the other involving a 3 three judge federal court which had invalidated a Texas redistricting map, the High Court held that states need no longer be automatically subject to the preclearance process.

That means that the two lower federal court decisions in those cases must now be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s rulings to determine whether their initial decision should stand, or be busted.

 

 

 

 

Your turn! What do you think?

They’ve got their work cut out for them

A governor vetoing legislation, university regents locked in power struggle with elected officials, threats of impeachment, all against the backdrop of a special session—sound familiar? You would be hard pressed to know whether it was the year 2013 or 1917.

Then

Our only Texas governor to be removed from office James “Pa” Ferguson (1915-1917) got into trouble because the board of regents at UT-Austin refused to remove particular faculty members whom he did not like. When the regents would not comply, the governor used his veto power (ability to reject legislation which requires two-thirds vote by both the Texas House and Senate) to remove most of the university’s appropriations.  In a special session called to address the appropriations issue, the House focused on and eventually impeached and then the Senate convicted “Pa” Ferguson who was removed from office.

Now

This time around, it is University of Texas Regent Wallace Hall that some legislators want to impeach during the special session for interference with the management of UT-Austin.   House Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts (R-Waxahachie) has put forward a resolution to impeach Hall who has been locked in a power struggle to get information from UT-Austin administrators. Pitts has accused Hall of going on a “witch hunt” by continually requesting documents.

This is the latest in the battle between legislators, regents, and the governor.  Sen. Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo) was successful in getting a bill passed in regular session which placed restrictions and added training requirements for new regents. Gov. Rick Perry, who appoints the regents, vetoed the law.

So the last week of the special session is going to be the agenda clearing equivalent of a hot mess.   Trying to get through all of the agenda items and pass proposed legislation is never easy, but this is mission impossible.

Top priority was the final passage of the redistricting maps (the changed political boundaries) which resulted in extended lawsuits and a delayed primary process.   The House finally approved a map with minor revisions that basically “tweaked” the court ordered map put forward in 2012 by three federal judges. Now it just has to get past the three readings required under the state Constitution.

But wait, there’s more including the Governor’s proposal to divert half of all oil and gas revenue coming from severance taxes (fees charged to producers for extracting natural resources) to go to the state Highway Fund rather than to the Rainy Day Fund.  The proposal still requires a constitutional amendment—two-thirds vote by legislators which puts the measure forward for voter approval by majority vote.

And if they still have time the legislature will need to resolve whether teens should get mandatory life sentences with parole in capital cases and consider whether all abortions after 20 weeks can be prohibited.

Five days and counting.

Your turn! What do you think?

Pushing buttons and pulling punches

Governor Perry is pushing hot button issues (highly salient issues which elicit strong emotional responses from other leaders and the general public) during the special session (30 day period that called by the Governor at the end of the regular session).  He has indicated that he is ready to pull the trigger on abortion reform and that he’s ready to pull the plug on the Public Integrity Unit (the agency that investigates the state agencies the governor oversees).

The Governor has called the legislature into special session to ensure his policy priorities receive the attention he thinks each deserves.  Texas has a plural executive system which fragments power among multiple offices.   Known as a weak governor system—one where the chief executive officer has limited power because other departments (typically under the governor’s control) are under another state officer who is subject to election by Texas voters. Top positions like Lieutenant Governor or Attorney General are offices elected by the people rather than by gubernatorial appointment.  There are other ways the Governor’s powers are limited.  For example, the Governor cannot suspend a capital murder death penalty—he only makes recommendation, the Board of Pardons and Paroles ultimately decides.

It’s kind of difficult to think of Rick Perry as “weak”-this is the guy who shoots coyotes while he’s out on his morning run.

How to think about the power a governor has is a complicated matter, and the National Governor’s Association (the professional association to which all governors belong) has quite a few ways in which you measure a governor’s power. No matter what metric you put on Texas, we have a weak governor system—but nobody told Governor Perry that.

He’s used the special session to give broad authority to Republicans to pass restrictive abortion legislation. Rather than define exactly what he wants done, he has said that lawmakers should consider legislation “relating to the regulation of abortion procedures, providers, and facilities.”  The Governor is not pulling any punches–he wants a law that prohibits abortions after 20 weeks (late term abortions).  This year Senate Democrats stopped 3 controversial bills because regular sessions require support from 21 senators before most legislation can be voted on–but those rules do not apply in special session (Republicans control the Senate 19-12 making them unstoppable during special session).

The Governor’s not stopping there.  He has threatened to use his veto power—the ability to reject legislation passed by the Texas House and Senate—to eliminate $7.5 million in funding for the Public Integrity Unit in Austin headed by District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg.  She was arrested and pled guilty in April to having a blood alcohol level three times what is allowed under Texas law.  Perry’s critics saying he’s just looking for an excuse to eliminate the office which is investigating improper ties between Governor Perry and his cronies.

Look out abortion providers and Rosemary Lehmberg, the coyote killer is on your trail.

Your turn! What do you think?

Opening the floodgates

Racial bias caught two high-profile GOP leaders off guard this week, opening the floodgates of criticism because of their political gaffes (some truth that a politician did not intend to admit).

Ken Emanuelson, a prominent Dallas Tea Party leader said “the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats,” raising questions about how welcoming the Republican party is toward persons of color.  Trying to throw water on the fire caused by Emanuelson’s comments, state GOP Chairman Steve Munisteri responded saying the statement did not reflect the party’s position and that Republicans were working hard to seek electoral support from both Hispanics and blacks.

Emanuelson defended himself pointing to the statistical reality of voter turnout (the percentage of persons who vote in elections).  African-Americans historically favor Democratic candidates in overwhelming numbers. Trying to deflect the controversy, he said he had not spoken on behalf of the Republican party, but that the views were his alone.

And someone who is no stranger to controversy, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Texas) Judge Edith Jones landed in hot water when she told an audience that minorities were more predisposed to committing crimes. Seemingly Jones was making the argument that persons of color are represented disproportionately in the criminal justice system because they are more inclined to commit crimes. The speech, which was actually made in February, so angered some attorneys who heard it, that this week, a formal complaint against the federal judge alleged ethics and judicial code violations.  Critics say that the judge’s statements violated the principles of judicial neutrality (judges should make fair and impartial decisions based solely on the facts and applicable laws, without being biased) and that the judge may need to recuse (excuse oneself from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality) herself in future cases because of racial bias.

Meanwhile, Republicans have also been accused of a different type of racial bias when it comes to immigration reform by trying to block legislation that gives illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.  U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), a minority whip (an official in a political party whose purpose is to ensure party discipline as an enforcer in a legislature) is the ranking Republican (most senior member of the minority party) on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Refugees and Border Security Subcommittee).  He is also a long-time critic of federal immigration policy, and he has proposed more border security measures (provisions to eliminate illegal immigration) saying that his measures must be included before he will support immigration reform. The legislation, being considered by the full Senate next week, is a major overhaul on immigration.  Cornyn’s amendments require more stringent border control including 100 percent situational awareness and operational control of the border (currently only 875 miles of the 2,000-mile southern border is monitored).   Critics have accused Cornyn of trying torpedo the current bipartisan reform bill, and they have said that Hispanics will send a torrent of voters to the polls to go after persons who do not support immigration reform. Cornyn’s office has responded that tougher measures are needed to stop the flood of illegal immigrants (there are about 11 million estimated in the U.S).

Let the flooding begin.

Your turn! What do you think?