Google+ Back to mobile

Floor Pass

Milly Wassum
Kelsey Jukam
Anti-Muslim protester Milly Wassum at the Texas Muslim Capitol Day.

Some state lawmakers are concerned that American courts may not follow American laws. There’s no evidence of, say, Swedish common law creeping into the Texas court system, but a few GOP legislators want to make sure foreign influence never stands a chance. That goal may seem innocuous—if not redundant—but the bill authors are fending off accusations that “American Laws for American Courts” legislation is intentionally discriminatory toward Muslims and could have unintended consequences for many other religious groups as well.

On Tuesday, Rep. Dan Flynn (R-Canton) told the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee that many of his constituents believe American liberties are “under attack” by nefarious foreign influences, and need to be assured that American law will continue to be enforced “on American soil.” Flynn’s  HJR 32 proposes a constitutional amendment directing the courts to “uphold and apply” the Texas and U.S. constitutions as well as state and federal law.

Flynn is also carrying HB 670, which says that a court’s ruling “may not be based on foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

Committee members asked the obvious questions: What’s the need for these bills? Isn’t it already the case that American courts follow American laws? When has this ever been a problem?

Flynn didn’t have any specific examples to share. Religious laws are often used to draw up civil contracts, and many mainstream religious groups have tribunals that issue non-binding rulings on civil disputes. Some believe that a mosque—or church, or synagogue—is a more appropriate arena to solve certain disputes than a courtroom. Participation in these tribunals is voluntary, and while a religious court’s decision may be referenced in a public court, those decisions do not legally supersede state or federal laws. According to Joshua Houston, an attorney with the interfaith advocacy organization Texas Impact, in the end the Constitution—and the legal order of authority—trumps all.

Flynn said that the bills were supposed to be preemptive, to ensure that there aren’t any problems down the road. He’s worried that without an explicit directive “activist judges” might begin to let foreign laws supersede American laws.

Rep. Travis Clardy (R-Nacogdoches) was the first of many committee members to express his skepticism.

“The buzzword everyone’s talking about is the use of Shariah law in Texas courts,” Clardy said. “I don’t know every judge in Texas, but I know a lot of them, and I have no fear or concern that the judges that I know and that I observe doing that in lieu of or in place of the federal constitution or the state constitution.”

Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano) said his bill, HB 562, doesn’t target any specific foreign law or religion, and those who claim it’s directed at a certain belief system are “misguided.” The scope of Leach’s bill is narrower than Flynn’s, applying only to family law (proceedings involving marriage or suits “affecting the parent-child relationship”).

All three bills, however, are derived from model legislation that was specifically designed to be anti-Shariah. Commonly known as “American Laws for American Courts,” the concept is the brainchild of lawyer and anti-Shariah activist David Yerushalmi (profiled in this New York Times article). It’s been passed in several states, most recently in Alabama. According to the Times, the language in these bills is intentionally vague, “worded neutrally enough that they might withstand constitutional scrutiny while still limiting the way courts handle cases involving Muslims.”

While the representatives and several witnesses in support of the bill may have tiptoed around mentioning Islam in particular, the hearing was tinged with an uncomfortable disrespect for the religion. Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) asked one witness—Sarwat Husain, president of the San Antonio chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations—to explain Shariah. When Husain said that “Shariah law is just following the guidance of God,” the audience erupted in groans and laughter.

“Muslims are loyal, law-abiding and tax-paying citizens,” Husain said. “We expect to be treated as equals in society and do not wish to be stigmatized, demonized, or treated like second-class citizens.

The extent of the practical implications of the legislation is still unclear. Analysts say the laws might affect the way churches can govern their own internal affairs, and could also affect adoptions, wills, marriages and divorces. According to Houston, the vague language in the bills could affect the law in “really unpredictable ways.” Houston said he’d seen a substitute—yet to be finished and given to committee members—to Leach’s original bill, which refers not only to “unconstitutional” religious laws but also to laws that “violate good morals” or “natural justice.”

“If we’re worried about activist judges going off the reservation—that language actually invites them to do that,” Houston said.

Leach said that one-third of the House had signed onto his bill, but that’s no indication that it will make it out of committee. Members seemed confused and unconvinced by arguments in support of the bills, calling them a “solution in search of a problem.” Clardy said lawmakers should restrain from passing unnecessary laws and said “if we don’t have a true issue before us, then we need to leave it alone.”

“We’ve got real issues in this state,” Clardy said.

 

Parade in favor of Denton fracking ban
Garrett Graham
Parade in favor of Denton fracking ban

Even before voters in Denton passed a measure that made their city the first in the state to ban fracking, state lawmakers were talking about filing legislation to block the ban. On Monday, more than four months after the Denton vote, a House committee discussed two bills that would derail local efforts to curb fracking. House Bill 40 would generally block cities from regulating oil and gas activity, and House Bill 539 would make cities and municipalities that do ban fracking pay for it—literally.

The hearing Monday at the House Energy Resources Committee drew an overflow crowd of oil industry boosters, environmentalists, city officials and citizens. Most of the debate centered on HB 40, authored by Rep. Drew Darby (R-San Angelo), the committee chairman.

Darby argued that the state already has the authority to regulate subsurface oil and gas activity, and that its authority preempts local governments from banning fracking. Local entities can continue to regulate surface activities and write ordinances that govern noise, traffic and odors, but they can’t control what goes on below the ground, he said.

But much of the day was spent parsing the confusing language of the legislation pertaining to what a city can and cannot do. The bill stipulates that local government is limited to regulating “only surface activity that is incident to an oil and gas operation” with ordinances that are “commercially reasonable” and don’t “effectively prohibit an oil and gas operation.” Elsewhere in the bill, “commercially reasonable” is defined as a “condition that permits a reasonably prudent operator to fully, effectively, and economically exploit, develop, produce, process, and transport oil and gas.”

Did you follow all that?

Opponents say the bill would undermine current city ordinances and allow operators to do whatever they want if they can prove that city ordinances aren’t “commercially reasonable.”

“We are experts in fracking loopholes,” said Sharon Wilson, a North Texas drilling reform advocate who was instrumental in getting the fracking ban on the ballot in Denton. “We know what they are; we live with them. [House Bill 40] is a fracking loophole.”

Darby and Rep. Jim Keffer (R-Eastland) tried to convince local government representatives that existing ordinances would likely hold up even if the bills passed.

State Rep. Drew Darby (R-San Angelo)
State Rep. Drew Darby (R-San Angelo)

“This bill … would have taken a whole different tack,” Darby said. “It could have done what you’re saying, what you think it’s going to do—it could have said there will be no city ordinances, no regulations, no rules that affect the operation of oil and gas. It did not. And that’s why I’m confused. Did any of you even read the bill?”

Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford), who is also on the committee, introduced HB 539, which would require cities and municipalities wishing to ban fracking to determine how much money their local and state governments would lose in tax revenue. Entities would have to spend the next five years paying the state and schools back for lost revenue.

Later, Darby and other committee members took turns grilling Denton officials, including Mayor Chris Watts.

Would the bill prevent a city from banning fracking, like Denton did?

“In my opinion if this bill passes as written today, it would make it very unlikely that a city would be able to ban fracking,” Watts finally said. Rep. Tom Craddick (R-Midland), a stalwart friend of the oil business, asked Watts how he voted when the fracking ban went to the City Council. “I voted against it, we passed it along to voters.”

“So you passed it?” Craddick responded, to laughs and “ooos” from the packed room. It was only one of many tense moments during the hearing, which lasted for almost nine hours.

Industry representatives, a couple of mineral rights advocates and a handful of elected officials were happy with the bill’s current language, but most everyone else wasn’t. “If HB 40 was clear and concise, there wouldn’t be a room full of local elected officials here to testify against it,” said Calvin Tillman, a former mayor of Dish, a small North Texas town where many residents claim that fracking has made them and their animals sick. “I don’t think any of us would have driven all this way if we had interpreted HB 40 the way you guys have described it. We’re here because we have concerns and with all due respect, you and the industry telling us that everything will be OK is not quite as reassuring as we need.”

Even city staff from Forth Worth—whose city ordinance was lauded by industry, legislators and others in favor of the bills throughout the hearing—testified against the bills. “I do not want to sit down with every single operator and decide whether it is commercially reasonable for that operator to drill,” Fort Worth City Attorney Sarah Fullenwider said late in the night, about seven hours into the hearing.

At that point, Darby appeared fed up with having to reassure local officials that his bill wouldn’t undo their ordinances. He yelled at Fullenwider, “Yours works! Not all jurisdictions’ [ordinances] work!”

Both bills were left pending.

Anti-gay marriage
Kelsey Jukam
"Biblical marriage" supporters rally at the Capitol.

Judges don’t typically speak publicly on issues like same-sex marriage.

But Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore says if he didn’t speak out against it, he’d consider himself guilty of treason.

At a rally against same-sex marriage on the south steps of the Texas Capitol on Monday, Moore invoked Col. William Barret Travis, the namesake of Travis County, an Alabama native who came to Texas “to draw a line in the sand at the Alamo.”

“He took a stand in the face of an enemy that was far more numerous,” Moore told a crowd of hundreds, including dozens of Republican state lawmakers. “But he knew that he had to make a statement for the people of Texas, and that he would give his life. I hope I don’t give my life, but I’m going to tell you this is a very serious matter. … If we fail to stand up today, we will dishonor the memory, not only of Col. Travis, but all those who’ve died in the history of this great state.”

Moore, famous for once being kicked out of office for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court building, recently ordered probate judges not to issue licenses to same-sex couples despite a federal judge ruling the state’s marriage amendment unconstitutional. Reading from several court opinions, Moore told the crowd at the “Defense of Texas Marriage Amendment” rally that federal judges don’t have authority over domestic policy related to family and marriage in the states.

Counter-protesters at an anti-gay marriage rally
Kelsey Jukam
Counter-protesters at an anti-gay marriage rally

“No court has any authority to redefine what God proposed in Genesis,” Moore said. “The definition of marriage, you want it by man, it doesn’t come by man, it comes from God.”

Also speaking at the rally—the second anti-gay marriage event at the Capitol in as many months—were GOP Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton, as well as Rep. Cecil Bell (R-Magnolia) and Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock).

Patrick said the rally, organized by the Conservative Republicans of Texas, was about two issues: supporting “traditional marriage” and defending states’ rights.

“It’s not about being anti-anyone,” Patrick said. “It’s about being for marriage between a man and a woman.”

Secondly, Patrick said, “It’s not the federal government’s business to tell Texans what to do in Texas on any issue.”

Paxton noted that during his first week in office in January, he defended Texas’ marriage amendment at the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, after a federal judge struck it down last year.

Last week, the AG’s office filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Labor over a rule that would extend benefits to same-sex couples in Texas under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

“We’re challenging the Obama administration once again, and we’re going to win this case for Texas,” Paxton said to cheers. “So please continue to pray for us, and I will pray that God blesses this great state of Texas. My office will continue to fight.”

Ken Paxton
Kelsey Jukam
Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks at an anti-gay marriage rally at the Capitol.

Sen. Perry, who along with Rep. Bell has filed legislation seeking to prevent Texas clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, introduced his pastor, Rev. David Wilson of Southcrest Baptist Church in Lubbock. Perry said the nation needs a revival that starts from the pulpits, and Wilson backed that up with a fiery speech.

“If humans invented marriage, then polygamy, the taking of several wives, polyandry, the sharing of a wife by several husbands, same-sex marriage, marriage between an adult and a child, marriage between relatives, might seem normal and acceptable,” Wilson said. “But if man created marriage, then monogamy, the lifelong union of one man to one woman, would have no more intrinsic value than any other type of marriage. But marriage is not human invention, it is God’s design.”

However, one counter-protester carried a sign noting that Rep. Tony Tinderholt (R-Arlington)—who filed an ethics complaint against one of the judges who struck down the marriage ban—has been married five times.

“I’m just wondering what gay marriage destroyed his previous four marriages,” said Gary Campbell of Austin.

Another counter-protester, Joseph George, carried a sign saying, “Keep Your Theocracy Off Our Democracy.”

Rep. Cecil Bell (R-Magnolia) speaks during a press conference hosted by the Coalition of African-American Pastors at the Capitol on Monday morning.
John Wright
Rep. Cecil Bell (R-Magnolia) speaks during a press conference hosted by the Coalition of African-American Pastors at the Capitol on Monday morning.

“I’m tired of the right trying to push their religion on everyone,” George said. “These people live in insular bubbles, and they have a very narrow world-view, and they need to be exposed to other ideas.”

Earlier, the Coalition of African-American Pastors hosted a press conference in a Capitol conference room to call on U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from hearing lawsuits challenging state marriage bans. However, the press conference, like the rally, focused largely on defending Texas’ ban.

“We are not going to let this erosion, death by a thousand cuts, tear down and destroy what’s left of the family in the state of Texas,” said Dave Welch, executive director of the Texas Pastor Council.

Welch pointed to legislation seeking to allow same-sex couples to have both names on the birth certificates of adopted children, as well as city ordinances “criminalizing Christian business owners for practicing their faith” and “allowing men into women’s restrooms.”

Rev. Bill Owens, founder and president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, accused the gay community of stealing and hijacking the civil rights movement.

“They were never beaten. They were never hung from trees. They were never fired for nothing. They were never treated like we were treated,” Owens said, becoming animated in response to a reporter’s question. “You don’t have a clue how we were treated in the South. You don’t have a clue. … This is not a civil rights movement. It’s a civil wrong movement.”

Here’s Moore’s speech at the rally:

Here’s Patrick’s speech:

Here’s Paxton’s speech:

And here’s an exclusive interview with Moore prior to the rally:

Ted Cruz at a wildly popular event in the convention's exhibition hall.
Timothy Faust
Ted Cruz experiences a moment of self-satisfaction at the 2014 Texas Republican convention.

Now he belongs to the ages. Today Ted Cruz, one of the foremost representatives of the state’s persecuted Texan-Canadian community and the junior Senator from the North Texas tea parties, ascended from this state’s low mortal plane and affixed himself to the celestial realm of presidential politics, where he’s always thought he truly belonged. The announcement wasn’t a surprise, but when it happened (earlier than his competitors) and where it happened (at the evangelical Liberty University) was.

What to make of it? Is this the beginning of a long, slow grassroots groundswell of the kind that Cruz harnessed to trample David Dewhurst in 2012? Could 2015 be the year of national #Cruzmentum?

No and no.

Some conservatives—and the Democratic Party fundraising apparatus—would have you believe otherwise, but a bet against Cruz winning the Republican nomination for president would be among the safest possible uses of your money. Cruz isn’t in the same category as the Ben Carsons and Carly Fiorinas of the world—people who are running only to up their future speaking fees and maybe land a Fox News gig—but he has a roughly similar chance of winning the GOP nomination, much less the presidency.

There are political reasons and policy reasons this is the case, as well as personal ones—are Americans really going to cheer for an Ivy League snob with an affinity for paisley bathrobes and Jesse Helms who hung a giant oil painting of himself arguing in front of the Supreme Court in his office?

But there’s a simpler reason to doubt Cruz: In almost every presidential election since FDR’s last re-election, Republicans have nominated the more moderate, business-minded candidate over an ideologue, with 1964 being the only real exception. (There’s 1980, too, but that’s something of a special case.) The conservatives who love Cruz are right: The donor class—the people who care a lot about estate taxes and not all that much about the gays—run the national party, more or less. Cruz is a Barry Goldwater in an era that’s not looking for one.

In his address this morning at Liberty, he posited the existence of what we might start calling the “Silent Plurality”—evangelical and other voters who would come out to support the party if it had real leadership. He has, certainly, an almost fanatic appeal to a part of the Republican base, and especially so in Texas.

But winning a Republican primary in this state provides a very particular kind of political experience, one that is not easily translatable elsewhere. For years, he’s been deploying the same one-liners at rallies—his speeches to friendly crowds, who’ve surely heard his zingers many times before, sometimes have the feel of a stand-up comedian’s routine.

But when he puts himself in front of crowds that won’t give him the easy laughs, he often looks lost. He’s more comfortable provoking people than finding commonalities with them. And despite his lauded oratorical skills, he’s never really proved adept at using the politician’s most basic tool: Tailoring his speech to different audiences as the need arises. His base loves him for that, of course.

Cruz’s most significant contribution to the race—apart from the inherent entertainment value—might be his ability to scramble the GOP primary here in Texas, thanks in part to a set of weird new rules adopted for the contest.

Next year, Texas’ primary will be on March 1, much earlier on the calendar than previous years. After the early states, like Iowa and New Hampshire, it will have been the biggest state to vote, and it’ll be rich with delegates. Because the GOP field could easily still be crowded at that early date, the state might play an important role in determining the winner.

Why does that matter for Cruz? The event next year is going to be a bit more complicated than it used to be. The state’s many delegates will be allocated three ways: There will be a pool of delegates that represent the statewide vote, a pool of delegates that represent the vote of each congressional district, and a pool of delegates whose allegiance will be determined at a later date.

If one candidate takes a majority of the vote in Texas next year, or a majority of the vote in one of the state’s congressional districts, they’ll take all of those delegates. But if no one takes a clear majority statewide or in certain congressional districts, the candidates who win more than 20 percent of the vote split those delegates proportionally. Then, a quarter of the pot will be awarded to one candidate at the state Republican convention later in the summer.

This is Cruz country, and if he’s still in the race by the Texas primary—you can bet he’ll stay in till at least then—he’s likely to take a big share of the vote, if not win it outright. If he does, it’ll have the effect of hurting other candidates who might do well here—candidates with Texas connections such as Rick Perry, Jeb Bush and Rand Paul.

With Cruz in the race, some might struggle to pass the 20 percent barrier. And if Cruz can lay a credible claim to having “won” the messy Texas primary, you can bet his supporters will be pushing hard to award those floating delegates to Cruz at a convention if there’s still a contest to be had.

Still, don’t worry too much about President Cruz. But don’t get too eager if you think a failed presidential campaign will knock him out of the spotlight. He’s up for reelection in 2018. Democrats used to fantasize about running a credible challenger against him—particularly, they talked about convincing one of the Castro brothers—but after the Democrats’ 2014 electoral disaster, that possibility seems remote. So despite the hundreds of thousands of words that will be written today, in most of earth’s languages, about Mr. Cruz’s chances, expect everything to stay the same, more or less.

Mary Gonzalez
Courtesy of Mary Gonzalez
State Rep. Mary Gonzalez (D-Clint)

This week, the House State Affairs Committee heard testimony on a bill that would allow teenagers who have already had a child to get birth control without their parents’ permission. Under current law, all minors under the age of 18 must get parental consent before receiving contraception from their doctors.

House Bill 468, filed by state Rep. Mary Gonzalez (D-Clint), would apply to teenage mothers ages 15 to 17.

“Teen mothers can consent to the medical treatment of their own children, but cannot consent to their own access to contraception,” Gonzalez told committee members on Wednesday. “If we trust teen mothers with the care of their own children, we must trust them to make their own decisions for their own reproductive health.”

Texas consistently ranks among the top three states for highest teen pregnancy rates, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. The Lone Star State teeters between first and second in highest repeat teen births, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Approximately 21 percent of babies in Texas born to teen moms in 2013 were repeat births, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. That translates to more than 8,200 births, said Anna Chatillon, a policy coordinator with the Healthy Futures Alliance of Texas, which works to reduce teen pregnancy and unplanned pregnancy.

“Right now we’re withholding the ability for teen mothers to make one of the best and sometimes one of the simplest health care decisions for themselves, and that’s waiting to have additional children until they’re older and ready for them,” she said.

Greg Guggenmos with the Texas Home School Coalition testified against the bill, arguing that giving teenage mothers the ability to decide for themselves if they want contraception compromises a parent’s right to “direct the control, care and upbringing of their children.”

Not every teen has the luxury of a parent who can comfortably talk about sex and birth control. Often, as several witnesses pointed out, teens don’t feel comfortable talking about sexual health with their parents, or they fear disappointing them. Sometimes, parents aren’t around talk to in the first place. Or, they’re uninterested.

“I wish the world were so neat that it was always safe for teens and they had a parent around who they can trust and talk to, but it’s just not like that,” said Susan Hays, a family lawyer who for 15 years has represented teenage girls seeking abortions without parental consent in bypass cases.

Some Texas public schools’ strict adherence to abstinence-only sex education, along with requiring minors get their parents’ permission for birth control, make it tough for teenage girls to make their own health care decisions, Hays said.

“We set teenage girls up to fail in terms of their access to medically and scientifically accurate sex ed and their access to birth control,” she said.

But Cecilia Wood, a family lawyer based in Austin, questioned whether teenage mothers are mature enough to decide whether they need birth control.

“I think if you’ve had one child, and you’re already putting yourself back in that situation, if you’re not mature enough to go to your parents and say, ‘Hey we need to talk about this,’ or go to a grandparent or an older sibling, or find someone who can engage your parents, you’re probably not mature enough to be making this decision in a vacuum for yourself,” Wood told the committee.

Norma Leal, a social work student, gave birth to her son when she was 16. She told the committee that she was lucky to have a supportive family that allowed her and her boyfriend to live in their home to raise the baby. Still, after she delivered, she said her mother didn’t talk to her about her future sexual health.

“I was told to come back with my mom” when she asked her doctor about contraception, she told the committee, adding that she and her mom went back a few weeks later and Leal got the birth control she wanted. “There were several weeks in between in which I could’ve had a second, and unplanned, pregnancy,” she said.

The committee left Gonzalez’s bill pending.

 

Sen. Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood) confers with Sen. Eddie Lucio (D-Brownsville)
Sen. Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood) confers with Sen. Eddie Lucio (D-Brownsville)

On Thursday, the Senate Education Committee debated strengthening a law that makes it easier for parents to make changes at low-performing schools.

A measure, passed in 2011, lets parents petition the state to turn schools with five consecutive years of poor state ratings into charter schools, to have the staff replaced, or even to close the school—an education reform strategy known as a “parent trigger.”

Senate Bill 14 by Senate Education Committee Chairman Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood) would reduce that period to two years, a kind of parental “hair trigger.”

(This session, it’s hard to escape the loaded language of gun debates.)

“This is about parent empowerment,” Taylor said. “[Five years] is too long to have young children stuck in a school and to have people defending that failing school district.”

Proponents of the law, which requires half the school’s parents to sign on, say it would help parents to take a lead role in school improvement, while critics call it a coordinated attempt to convert schools to privately run charters that lack oversight.

John Gray spoke against the bill on behalf of the Texas State Teachers Association.

“Our concern on this bill is the profit motive that could be driven by some educational management organizations,” Gray said. “You are calling it a parent empowerment law, but looking at the for-profit motive, once those parents sign the petition they are done.”

California adopted the nation’s first parent trigger law in 2010, and similar laws have been adopted in at least seven states. California is the only state where the law has been used to force changes at a school.

David Anthony, CEO of Raise Your Hand Texas, said he spent time in California interviewing parents and stakeholders in schools where the parent trigger had been used.

California found that paid operatives influenced the parent trigger petition process at Desert Trails Elementary School.

“Even where parent trigger created change, campaigns produced lasting divisions in the community,” Anthony said.

Last year, the Texas Education Agency rated 750 of Texas’ 8,000 schools academically unacceptable. Those school ratings rely mostly on standardized test scores that closely track family income, and low-performing schools are more likely to have high rates of poverty, racial segregation and students with limited English.

Gabe Rose is the chief strategy officer of Parent Revolution, a nonprofit group that has encouraged parent trigger laws nationwide, beginning with the California law passed in 2010.

“I agree that test scores in general correlate with student income,” Rose told the Observer. He said the bill would affect schools serving large percentages of economically disadvantaged students. “Under the proposed move in Texas it’ll only be about 300 schools—I think it’s 290 or so—that are eligible for the law,” Rose said.

Parent-trigger petitions wouldn’t necessarily request conversion to a charter school; parents could also ask to close the school or replace the staff.

Still, the groups pushing parent-trigger laws have roots in the charter community. Parent Revolution was founded by leaders from the charter school network Green Dot, and is funded largely by the Walton Family Foundation, one of the nation’s largest financial backers of charter schools.

Taylor filed a bill similar to SB 14 last session, which the Senate passed but never came up for a vote in the House Public Education Committee. This session, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has named parent trigger one of his top education priorities.

Open Carry Texas rally
Kelsey Jukam
Members of Open Carry Texas rally at the Capitol.

The right to bear arms wasn’t one of the five emergency items outlined in Gov. Greg Abbott’s State of the State address in February, but you might think otherwise if you’ve been watching the Senate lately. The Second Amendment took center stage this week as the Senate OK’d bills that would allow licensed gun-owners to carry handguns concealed on college campuses and openly everywhere else in public. Similar legislation has come up in the last three sessions, without much success. But with a fresh crop of senators, and the leadership of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the political climate has become ripe for passing gun bills that were once considered outside the political mainstream of the Capitol.

On Monday, Sen. Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls), the author of the Senate open carry legislation, confidently batted down Democratic opposition as they pitched questions and offered up amendments to Senate Bill 17.

Sens. John Whitmire (D-Houston) and Kirk Watson (D-Austin) clearly did their homework, forcing Estes to consult with his staff numerous times to answer questions that should have been easy to answer (like whether a proposed amendment was germane to the bill—Estes said he didn’t know, but was going to move to table it anyway). But Estes and many of the Democrats acknowledged during the course of the debate that open carry wasn’t going to be stopped in the Senate.

There were numerous last-minute amendments to the bill. Three passed: one postponing implementation of the law until Jan. 1, 2016; another requiring extra training in weapon retention (how to hold onto your gun if it’s grabbed by an attacker); and one that would prohibit open carry on college campuses. The rest died quickly as votes split on party lines, 20-11.

Open carry legislation has never come this far. Last year, two open carry bills were left pending in the House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee.

Sen. John Whitmire
Sen. John Whitmire was one of the most vocal opponents to SB11 and SB17.

C.J. Grisham, founder of Open Carry Texas, told the Observer that groups like his forced legislators to deal with gun bills this session. He says in the past, only a few lobbyists—most for the National Rifle Association and the Texas State Rifle Association—worked on these issues. But this time grassroots activists “mobilizing Texans all around the state” made the difference.

The success of open carry legislation in the Senate this year was more surprising than that of campus carry. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said during a Texas Tribune forum in January that he didn’t think there was enough support in the Legislature for open carry to pass, but the odds were much better for campus carry. Legislation to allow guns on campus has also gained more traction in past sessions than open carry. Last year, the Legislature passed a law to allow concealed handgun license-holders to store their weapons and ammunition in private vehicles on college campuses.

During the debate, Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) said he hoped that the “extended conversation” between senators on the floor would at least lead House colleagues to “taking a deep breath and not feeling the political pressure, and really deliberating” on campus carry.

Many legislators and activists are hoping that campus carry will face a greater challenge in the House this year than it has in the Senate. But in 2013, a campus carry bill passed in the House 102-41. Notably, 78 of the members who voted ‘yes’ on that bill are still in the House.

That legislation, however, included a provision allowing individual universities to decide whether to allow guns on campus. On Wednesday, Sen. Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury), author of the campus carry legislation SB 11, shot down a proposed amendment to let public universities opt out, though private universities can. Birdwell argues that private property rights must be respected as much as one’s “God-given” right to bear arms.

Referencing a recent poll that found most Texans don’t support campus carry, Sen. Sylvia Garcia (D-Houston) asked Sen. Birdwell, “What are we really doing here?” She echoed the sentiments of a few other senators, saying that local campuses should be allowed to decide whether to allow guns on campus or not. Birdwell said his aim is to advance to the ability of concealed handgun license holders to keep their rights, and though he values the opinions of those in charge of public universities, the “No. 1” opinion is that of “the people who sent us here.”

After four hours and 25 proposed amendments, SB 11 passed to engrossment, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against it. The final vote on the bill will take place Thursday.

Correction: The original story stated that Sen. Craig Estes is a Republican from Granbury. In fact, he is a Republican from Wichita Falls. The Observer regrets the error.

Andy Miller (left) and Brian Stephens with their son, Clark
Andy Miller (left), shown with his partner Brian Stephens and their adopted son, Clark, was among those who testified in favor of the bill Wednesday.

A Republican committee chairman smacked down an anti-LGBT witness Wednesday during a hearing on a proposal to allow same-sex parents to have both their names on the birth certificates of adopted children.

Julie Drenner, of Texas Values, claimed the bill would lead to threesomes adopting, affect all birth certificates and require the state to revise more than 20 forms.

But Rep. Byron Cook (R-Corsicana), chairman of the House Committee on State Affairs, told Drenner he was “struggling” with those arguments, and suggested that same-sex couples have been more willing to adopt special-needs children than “the traditional community.”

“That’s a terrible indictment on one group, to be honest with you,” Cook told Drenner. “In regards to your issue that you have to change the forms, so what? I really don’t understand that argument at all. Right now in Texas, we are struggling. We do not have enough parents who are willing to adopt. Thank goodness for people that will adopt children and give them loving homes.”

In 1997, the Legislature amended the Texas Health & Safety Code to require supplemental birth certificates issued to adoptive parents to contain the name of one female, the mother, and one male, the father. Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas), the author of House Bill 537, said as a result, roughly 9,000 Texas children who are being raised by adoptive same-sex parents don’t have accurate birth certificates. That leads to problems enrolling children in school, adding them to insurance policies, admitting them for medical care and obtaining passports.

“Regardless of what you think about the parents, this state should be about promoting policies that protect children and foster adoption, and that’s what this bill does,” Anchia said.

Rep. Byron Cook (R-Corsicana)
Rep. Byron Cook (R-Corsicana)

Kirsten Edwards choked back tears as she told the committee that in addition to being a legal assistant to an adoption attorney, she’s the same-sex parent of a 2-year-old boy. Edwards, whose name is on her son’s birth certificate, said while the family hasn’t encountered any bureaucratic problems yet, she dreads the day her son asks why the document doesn’t include both mothers.

“I’ve thought about it a lot, and I have no idea what I’m going to tell him,” Edwards said.

Zoe Touchet, 14, said if her biological mom, who isn’t on her birth certificate, were to pass away, she’d be forced to go to court and unseal her adoption records to obtain Social Security benefits.

“I feel like as a child of same-gender parents, I’m not getting the same rights,” Zoe said. “I feel like I’m getting punished for something people shouldn’t be punished for.”

Anchia noted that two years ago, when Texas Values alleged the bill would lead to “mother” and “father” being removed from all birth certificates, PolitiFact said the claim was “mostly false.” Likewise, the bill states that “both” parents could be listed on birth certificates, thereby precluding threesomes.

“They’ve been fact-checked, and their contentions have not held up,” Anchia said of Texas Values. “I would not submit, members, to the politics of fear.”

Cook, who has an adopted child, left the bill pending but indicated he plans to call it back up.

“We owe it to young people like Zoe to give them some peace of mind on this issue and some clarity,” Cook said.

Dennis Bonnen
Dennis Bonnen

After four hours of debate on almost 50 amendments, the House passed, on an initial vote, a comprehensive border security bill by Rep. Dennis Bonnen (R-Angleton).

House Bill 11 passed on a 131-12 vote.

The far-reaching bill would expedite hiring of additional Department of Public Safety troopers to serve in the border region, create a Texas Transnational Crime Intelligence Center in the Rio Grande Valley, enact more serious penalties for human smugglers and commission a study on the creation of checkpoints on southbound roads.

According to the Legislative Budget Board, the price-tag for the bill totals $4.1 billion over the next two years.

Bonnen said that creating a permanent DPS presence on the border would eliminate the need for so-called border surges. Texas’ latest deployment of law enforcement started last summer in response to a wave of unaccompanied Central American children crossing the border. An internal DPS report found that the surge had taken away from crime-fighting elsewhere in the state.

“For the first time in the history of our nation,” Bonnen said, “we’re having a consistent plan to fill the void of the federal government’s constitutional responsibility to secure the border, which for some reason they choose not to do.”

Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview) started today’s debate off on a combative note when he objected to the possible creation of southbound checkpoints.

Simpson said he spent a week at the border and never heard any calls for checkpoints going south into Mexico.

Bonnen argued that the checkpoints could be an important tool to catch transnational gangs smuggling money, guns or other weapons.

Democrats put up little resistance.

Most of the several dozen amendments were withdrawn before being voted on.

Rep. Armando Walle (D-Houston) offered seven amendments to the bill, including one that would have required DPS to put contracts over $5,000 out for a competitive bid—a remedy for the no-bid contracting scandals that have rocked DPS and other agencies. All Walle’s amendments failed.

Rep. Eddie Lucio III (D-Brownsville) said that he supported the bill because of increased criminal threats from drug cartels on the border.

“They are very bad people, with very bad intentions,” he said.

Other border lawmakers say crime in border communities has been overstated and have questioned the need for an increased state law enforcement presence.

Walle and Rep. Mary Gonzalez (D-Clint) voiced concerns over spending more than $4 billion on a border security bill without having a clear definition of what constitutes a secure border. Gonzalez pointed out that El Paso is the safest large city in the country. Both representatives voted against the bill.

More than 70 members of the House co-authored HB 11. An almost identical Senate bill by Sen. Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury) had a committee hearing today.

Vincent Lopez
Kelsey Jukam
Vincent Lopez, is founder of the Patient Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics.

Timothy Dasher’s 12-year-old daughter, Felicity, has epilepsy and suffers from frequent seizures. She usually has to wear a helmet to protect her head from the sudden falls, which have bruised and broken her small body. Today she wore an enormous pink-and-white bow in her hair as she and her father stood with dozens of activists at the Capitol in support of legislation that would allow Texans to legally access medical marijuana.

Dasher and other activists are getting behind House Bill 3785, and its companion Senate Bill 1839, legislation giving patients who have a doctor’s recommendation to acquire and use marijuana. Proponents of the legislation say that medical marijuana has many of the same treatment benefits as prescription medications without as many of the harmful side-effects.

Dasher says his daughter tried 15 different pharmaceutical drugs over 10 years to try to stop the seizures. None of them worked, he said. If anything, they seemed to make the condition worse. But when the family moved to Colorado, and started using medical marijuana. “We found her miracle,” he said. He hopes that medical marijuana will be legalized this session, so they don’t have to leave their Granbury home again.

Rep. Marisa Marquez (D-El Paso), author of HB 3785, said in a press conference this afternoon that Texas needs to take a “scientific and reasoned approach” to medical marijuana, and allow patients and doctors to choose their best treatment plan.

“The support we see here today is a clear indication that the Legislature needs to take the suffering of these Texans seriously,” Marquez said.

She calls her 40-page bill “comprehensive,” and says that it includes safeguards to prevent misuse of the drug. The bill would allow the Department of State Health Services to establish a regulated system of licensed cultivators and dispensaries.

Marquez’s legislation is more detailed and ambitious in scope than other medical marijuana bills filed this session and in previous ones. In 2013, Rep. Elliott Naisthat (D-Austin) carried a bill that would have given patients using medical marijuana an affirmative defense if they were arrested on charges of possession. That bill, HB 594, was left pending in committee.

This session, three Republican legislators filed bills that would legalize access to cannabidiol (CBD), one of the 85 active ingredients in cannabis. CBD has been effective at treating some epilepsy patients, but many patients need other components of marijuana, including THC, to effectively treat their symptoms. HB 3785 and SB 1839 would allow access to whole marijuana and oils that have a more balanced ratio of CBD and THC.

Vincent Lopez, outreach director for the Patient Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics, began using medical marijuana in 2009 to treat muscle spasms. For the last 25 years, Lopez has used a wheelchair, while struggling with Becker muscular dystrophy, a condition characterized by slowly worsening muscle weakness. He says marijuana acquired on the black market doesn’t have consistent results. There are multiple strains of cannabis, and some are more effective at treatment for certain medical conditions than others. With the black market product, Lopez says, you never know what strain you’re getting.

Rep. Marisa Marquez
Kelsey Jukam
Rep. Marisa Marquez discusses her bill that would legalize medical marijuana.

Under the proposed legislation, patients who have specific illnesses or disorders listed in the bill—such as cancer or epilepsy—would qualify for access. The bill also includes people who experiences chronic and severe pain, or suffer from a symptom deemed “debilitating” by the Department of State Health Services.

Medical marijuana is legal in 23 states. According to a 2013 poll by the Marijuana Policy Project, 58 percent of Texas voters believe that seriously ill patients should be allowed to use medical marijuana if they have a doctor’s recommendation to do so. A Texas Tribune poll from last year, found that 77 percent of Texans support the legalization of marijuana for at least some uses.

On Monday, Gov. Greg Abbott said in a press conference that marijuana decriminalization is not likely to happen this session. He said that Texas should divert “away from activity that involves drug use and helping people lead more productive lives.”

Many patients argue that medical marijuana is the key to living a productive, pain-free life.

Marquez said in the press conference that the biggest challenge to passing this legislation is education.

“I think many people when they hear marijuana, immediately, there’s an apprehension about what exactly we’re trying to do here,” she said.

She hopes she’ll be able to help her colleagues understand every aspect of the bill, to alleviate those types of concerns. HB 3785 and SB 1839 were both filed last week and neither has been assigned to a committee.