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?

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.

Your turn! What do you think?

Just say no

The waning days of the 83^rd Texas legislative session are going to come down to yeas and nays.

The Senate HB 866 which reduced the number of tests public school children have to take. That means students who do well on state exams could skip mandatory tests (required grade level examinations) in sixth grade. That assumes that Texas can get a waiver from the federal government which requires 14 different tests by the end of eighth grade under the No Child Left Behind Act.  The law mandates our nation’s 98,000 public schools make “adequate yearly progress” and make remedial changes or risk losing federal funding.  Texas has over 80,000 fifth graders and 60,000 eighth graders who may be held back this year because of poor performance. While students have two opportunities to retake tests (in May and June), the bill’s supporters say resources used to administer tests can be targeted to help those most in need.  Further complicating the matter is that the Senate’s version still needs to be approved by the House which also eliminated tests in the fourth and seventh grades.

That’s a sticking point.

One measure that had legislators on pins and needles was mandatory drug testing (the use of biological material to detect specific drugs) for all unemployment recipients.  SB 11 by Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound) required all unemployment recipients answer a screening survey about possible drug use in order to receive benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families  (the federal and state government’s joint social welfare program).

Time ran out on the clock at midnight last night, however, when a compromise failed. It is noteworthy that one amendment was proposed which would have required mandatory drug testing for legislators.

One provision that makes it easier for UT-Austin to just say no is a measure that extended the university’s admissions’ cap.  Texas’ ten percent rule allows all students who graduate in the top of their class be admitted to their choice of public universities.  In 1997 the state legislature established the ten percent rule in reaction to Hopwood v. Texas from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which struck down public universities’ attempts to enhance diversity by using race as a key factor in admissions. By 2008, so many students in the top 10 percent of their class were using the rule that UT-Austin had to admit virtually everyone.  That hurt minority applicants who were good, but not good enough to meet the 10 percent cutoff.  So UT-Austin successfully obtained a waiver which was extended this week to effectively allow UT-Austin to admit the top seven percent.  Now the waiver is has a sunset provision (regulation that will eliminate the bill’s application) effective in 2017.

We will see what the U.S. Supreme Court has to say because we are waiting on a June decision in the Fisher v. Texas case which considers whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions.

Just say maybe.