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.

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.

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.