What’s the score?

Even though the Texas legislature voted against term limits (statutory limits on the number of terms an official may serve) for its top-level officials earlier in the 83^rd session, Governor Perry set his own term limits by deciding not to seek a record-breaking fourth term.  That means that Perry, the longest-serving governor in Texas history (over 15 years), leaves an open seat (one where there is no previously elected official holding the office).   Traditional wisdom is that it incumbents (the persons who now hold the office) make it much more difficult for challengers (those competing against the officeholder).  With Perry out of the way, the competition is lining up—it is expected that Attorney General Greg Abbott will announce his candidacy this weekend.  Former GOP Party Chairman Tom Pauken is also interested in being Governor, but that’s just the beginning of what might be a shakeup because of the ripple effect of the Governor’s office being vacated.

Get ready, you are going to need a scorecard to keep up.

You might have thought that the likely candidate for Perry’s job would be current Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst (incumbent), but after his stunning defeat to Ted Cruz in the U.S. Senate race last year, Dewhurst is vulnerable.  He’s hoping to take advantage of the incumbency effect (tendency of those holding office to win reelection), but he faces three tough challengers including Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston); Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples (Palestine); Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson (Houston).

With Abbott out-of-the-way, that means the Attorney General job opens up.  Likely candidates are Rep. Dan Branch (R-Dallas); Sen. Ken Paxton (R-McKinney), and Railroad Commission Chairman Barry Smitherman who will probably all get in the race.

What about the Democrats?

Perry’s announcement might seem like a cause for celebration by Democrats (indeed cake was served to celebrate Perry’s decision), but victory will be a long tough road.   Democrats haven’t won a statewide office since 1994. For now the Democrats are going to make it a hot one.

The special session continues to get even hotter, and today it will reach a fever pitch. The abortion bill which failed in the last special session, passed the Texas House on Wednesday and will head to the Senate today.  It will most likely pass, but there will be a showdown and a fight to the bitter end.  A pro-choice rally on Thursday featuring Sen. Wendy Davis (D-Ft. Worth) who filibustered (talking indefinitely to keep a bill from passing last time around) riled up large crowds encouraging them to “rock the boat”.   If and when the bill does pass, Texas will become the 13^th state to have a provision prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks.  It will also be a final triumph for Republicans who have so far been unsuccessful in passing restrictive abortion laws.  Indeed 24 different provisions proffered during the regular 83rd session have all failed to pass.

But who’s keeping score.

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.

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.

Isn’t that special

This week, and as predicted, the legislature has gone into special session (a limited 30 day session called by the Governor).  At the conclusion of the regular 140 day regular biennial session (which meets only in odd-numbered years), the gavel came down in both chambers signaling the end, but within 10 minutes, the Governor invoked his state Constitutional powers.  Such authority allows the state’s chief executive to call the legislators into “extraordinary session…at any time and for any reason”.  The key is that the Governor must specify the issues or else face a runaway legislature (one where lawmakers focus on their own policy agenda rather than what the governor wants).

Several outstanding issues need resolution, but most salient is the need to adopt a redistricting map.  After the 2010 census required by the U.S. Constitution, the Texas legislature had to go through reapportionment of the Texas House and Senate, along with the U.S. House of Representatives.  Seats were reallocated into the different administrative or election districts, and then the state legislature had to redistrict (the process of drawing boundary lines for election districts in a state).  The new maps resulted in the filing of two federal court cases (one in San Antonio and the other in Washington, D.C. where Texas had to get approval from the federal government).  The San Antonio court found that the legislature had gerrymandered (illegally manipulated) district lines to favor one group over another.  The three-judge court then re-drew the maps to accurately represent racial minority interests—those maps were used in the 2012 election. The court in D.C. did the same thing about six months later.   

Now the state legislature has to vote on whether they want to approve the San Antonio map or try to draw up their own during the special session. 

Other hot issues that Governor Perry may press for during the special session include prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks, drug testing for welfare applicants, and allowing guns on campus. The Governor may have to call more than one session.  He can call an unlimited number, but each 30 day session costs about $1.3 million because of per diem costs—monies allocated to pay for funding, travel and staff during the session.  Perry hasn’t been shy about using his authority—he’s called 10 sessions during his 12 years in office.  

And in other census news, a new report highlights that Texas’ growth in the Hispanic population after the 2010 census means that immigrants have substantially contributed to the gross state product (total sum of all goods and services produced in the state in a given year).  According to the report, Texas’ immigrants produce about 69.3 billion in economic activity by spending in the state, contribute about $30.8 billion in gross state product, and account for approximately 403,174 of the state’s workforce.   The report comes at a time when the U.S. government is considering a major overhaul on immigration reform. 

Guess we’ll just have to wait and see whether the federal government thinks immigrant economic contributions are special enough to merit immigration reform.

Ending it all

So when is it time to vote the rascals out?  If the bill that just passed out of the Senate is successful in the House, and then goes to the Texas voters as a Constitutional amendment, those elected to statewide office may find time is running out. Term limits— the statutory limits on the number of terms an official may serve—are popular because it restricts politicians from accumulating power.  Such laws limit the incumbency effect (the tendency of those already holding office to win reelection over and over again) and prevent politicians from becoming omnipotent.  While there are term limits in place for governors in 38 states, state laws vary widely about whether other statewide office holders are subject to term limits.  Even in those states that have gubernatorial term limits, if the governor is out of office for at least one or more terms, they can technically be re-elected again. The proposed law would allow officeholders to eventually run again after an intervening term of office has occurred (candidates have to sit it out for one election cycle).

The provision has the greatest impact on Governor Rick Perry who has served an unprecedented three terms in office (after finishing Governor George W. Bush’s term when he was elected to President in 2000).  Perry has indicated he will announce by June whether he intends to seek a fourth term.  The current law has a “grandfather clause” allowing current office holders an exemption from immediate application–Perry could still run for another two terms after the law comes into effect.

So are legislators targeting Perry?

They argue that’s not the case, but that they want greater government accountability. Still some politicians, including Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst whose own job would be affected, question whether the law was needed.

After all, we have term limits, they are called elections–you might want to check ‘em out.

And speaking of termination, pro-life bills introduced in the Texas Senate target doctors’ medical treatment in making end of life decisions by giving patients and their surrogates greater discretion under Texas’s existing advance directives law (set of written instructions specifying what actions are to be taken if the person is ill or incapacitated).  Physicians frequently make the final medical  judgments about ending treatment—especially to the elderly and terminally ill.   Both bills give patients and their surrogates more discretion to challenge doctors’ ability to make the final determination about end-of-life treatment  (e.g. feeding and hydration tubes keeping the patient alive so terminating such treatment often results in the patient’s eventual death).

Guess the Texas legislature is really dealing with life and death issues this go round.  I wonder who (and what legislation) will survive.

Getting out the vote and giving up the fight

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court takes up a case which has ramifications for Texas.   Since the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA), the federal government has expanded authority to act as a watchdog over elections throughout the country.  The VRA prohibits state and local governments from restricting voting rights and access to minority voters by mandating preclearance procedures which require some state and local governments (including Texas and eight states) to submit all changes affecting voting and elections for approval to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division or to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.  That’s what happens every 10 years after the states conduct redistricting (the drawing of the geographic boundary lines to determine the representative structure for elections).

The question in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) is whether the preclearance process has outlived its purpose.  In 2008, then President Bush’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the city when it re-drew voting lines eliminating the only majority black city council seat.   Alabama argues that blacks were integrated into the population, and that continued supervision by the federal courts causes confusion and delay for elections–the South is a different place from 1965.

Texas agrees.

Or at least Republican leaders do.

Attorney General Greg Abbott has filed an appeal in a federal court case which struck down Texas’ 2011 redistricting plan.  Two different federal courts have found that Texas impermissibly interfered with minority voting rights with the plan, and Abbott’s appeal is likely to be on hold while the Supreme Court resolves the Shelby county case.

What do the rest of Texans think? Not everyone agrees with Abbott.  It might surprise you to learn that a recent public opinion poll found a slim majority of Texans (about 51%) including 1/3^rd Republicans think there is some place for federal supervision over voting rights.

And speaking of opinions, wonder what Governor Rick Perry is thinking as he watches other Republican governors giving up the fight with President Obama over Medicaid funding under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Under the law, Medicaid funding (the joint federal-state program providing health insurance to low-income persons) has been hard for governors to resist because it means more money for state budgets.  Eleven Republican are standing firm that they will not accept federal monies because they do not want to be under a national regulatory scheme (structure which allows the federal government to demand conditions from the states), while 12 Republican governors have not weighed in yet.

Trouble for Governor Perry is that this week Republican Governor Rick Scott, who had been resisting federal money, gave in and agreed that Florida will take Medicaid monies.   That draws attention to the fact that if the Governor changed his mind and let Texas participate by putting up the $15 billion (our share of the program costs), the state would receive $100 billion in federal funds in the next 10 years. Those funds could be used to expand  health care coverage for 2 million people–approximately 25% of Texans  have no insurance.

It promises to be a tough battle for the Governor.

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”?

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.

You’re cut off?

The statutory restriction on the number of terms an official or officeholder may serve (term limits)—have been popular since the late 1980s-90s as the federal government implemented reforms focused on legislative accountability (the extent to which legislators pursue the interests of their constituent supporters).  While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down federal term limits in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1992), today 15 states have limits for elected state representatives.  Five liberal justices in the U.S. Term Limits case found that federal government must pass a Constitutional amendment to enact limits. Why?  The Articles of Confederation (our country’s first Constitution considered a terrible failure, but which led to our current Constitution) had term limits, so the majority reasoned that the founders’ omission meant they did not intend for such provisions to be enacted.

Nonetheless, the recent surge of Tea Party support in Texas brought to power officials who want to change the system, including establishing term limits for state offices.  Ironically, the measures introduced in the next legislative session will target fellow Republicans who do not share the Tea Party’s more conservative values.  Proposals for term limits range from a Constitutional amendment limiting statewide, non-judicial officeholders from running for a third consecutive term (most statewide offices are four years) to other proposals which limits lawmakers to serving six biennial (two year) legislative sessions.

That certainly would limit the incumbency effect (the perpetual re-election of representatives because they have the advantage of using their elected office to accumulate support and name recognition).

Speaking of trying to put a stop to something, the Attorney General Greg Abbott has raised concerns about stopping school campus violence.  In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shootings,  Attorney General Greg Abbott warned 78 of the state’ s 1025 school districts that they were not in compliance (had not met state requirements) for having proper campus security arrangements.   Of great concern is that 38 districts do not even have a safety plan on file which is mandated by a 2005 state law requiring schools have policies for emergencies and crises.   The law could be considered a symbolic policy because it has no fines or penalties attached—there are no enforcement mechanism requiring schools carry out state policy.

One district that has a unique form of compliance is Harrold ISD-a rural school near the Oklahoma border which allows teachers to carry guns on campus.  Most folks don’t know that both federal and state laws allow for schools to obtain permission for arming teachers.  Harrold’s “Guardian Plan”—put in place after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings—requires teachers complete the concealed handgun class, obtain the approval of the school board, and agree to use only “frangible ammunition” (which breaks apart when it hits hard surfaces thus preventing ricochets).

So for perpetual incumbents facing term limits and guns in schools, have they been cut off?  The answer is a definite “maybe”.

The post-election wrap (part II)

Since Ann Richards’ defeat at the hands of George Bush in the 1994 gubernatorial election, the tide of Democratic control on the legislature and governor’s office has shifted at the statewide level. Texas today remains a Republican stronghold, and undoubtedly when you review Tuesday’s vote at the statewide level, that solid majority continues.  Republican control of the U.S. House delegation continues after having flipped following the 2000 election (24 Republicans – 12 Democrats).

Political scientists speak in terms of unified and divided government referring to whether the legislature and governor’s office are controlled by one or both parties.  Texas is clearly under unified control.  With conditions of unified government, one party generally has the ability to set the agenda and implement its policy preferences.  At the national level, it will be interesting to see how the Texas delegations gets along in a U.S. House controlled by the Republicans, and a U.S. Senate controlled by the Democrats.  The 113^th Congress may be gridlocked especially given that in the Senate, you need 60 votes or a 3/5^th supermajority (60 of 100 Senators) to pass a vote of cloture (which closes off debate and calls the question so the full Senatorial body can vote on whether a bill should become law).  So even though the Democrats technically control the Senate, because Republican Senators can filibuster knowing that the Democrats must get a super-majority to end debate, it is much easier to kill legislation.

Despite President Obama’s re-election victory, the political culture in Texas remains staunchly conservative.  When you examine who the freshmen Republicans were that won election to the Texas House and Senate, there is good reason to believe that the next legislature may have a more conservative agenda.

So what changed? Who did we vote for and what are the demographics of the 83^rd Texas legislature?

We tended to vote for incumbents. True, there were 49 new House members, and 6 new Senators, but these were largely open seats (ones where there was no incumbent running for re-election).  Of the 246 seats available in all statewide elections, there were only 16 people who were challenged and voted out of office.  Republican legislative dominance dropped slightly (95-55) from 102-48, and the Senate stayed the same (19 Republicans-12 Democrats). We have a less experienced legislature, owing in part to a huge pick up in 2010 of freshman.  We continue to have 67 freshman or sophomore members in the Texas House who may be more conservative than their predecessors.  That will depend on what both parties define as the top priorities moving forward.

What will be on the agenda? That one is yet to be unwrapped.