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.

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.

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.

The post-election wrap (part I)

So another election has wound down and the political pundits are going crazy analyzing the election results, and what it all means going forward. What happened in the top races around the state? Let’s start this first blog with what didn’t happen.

The Republicans did not manage to get the super-majority in either the Texas House or the Texas Senate that they had hoped.  A super-majority is a greater vote percentage than the typical 50% plus simple majority necessary to accomplish legislative business—and it is typically a two-thirds or three-fifths majority. True Texas Republicans held the state Legislature, but lost their supermajority in the House of Representatives.  Before Tuesday Republicans held a 102-48 majority, and after, it went to 95-55. The Senate stayed at a 19-12 Republican advantage. Had the Republicans attained a super-majority, they would have been able to suspend the rules to push legislation through more easily.  That will be important because funding for public education promises to be a contentious issue where Democrats will need to have negotiation leverage.  Blocking the super-majority gives them that.

Wendy Davis did not lose her seat to Mark Shelton in the most bitter and expensive race in Texas.  Davis who is a rising star was able to take advantage of her incumbency effect (re-election advantage that elected representatives have over newcomers because voters recognize the candidate’s names and interest groups are more likely to give money to incumbents).  Davis narrowly defeated Shelton (51-49%) after he accused her of ethics violations.

The incumbency effect doesn’t always help you though, so speaking of expensive and bitter races, the bid for the U.S. House seat in District 23 still remains contentious in the post hoc analysis. That race saw Democratic challenger state Rep. Pete Gallego defeat incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco.  This will make Gallego one of eight freshmen (first-time) representatives in the newly redistricted Texas 36-member delegation. That is when and if Canseco concedes the race, which so far he has not done. Why? The vote difference is about 9,000 and Canseco has argued voting irregularities and voter fraud account for his loss and has vowed not to accept the loss.

Guess for that race, it’s not yet a wrap.