The Texas Observer

Rep. Charlie Howard’s so-called freedom of religious expression in public schools bill passed this afternoon, facing a somewhat tamer reception in the House this time around. Still opponents did put up a fight, offering up a number of (failed) amendments that would have cleaned up the bill’s blatant attempt at allowing a religious majority to cram their theology down the throats of a captive school audience.

Howard opposed all the amendments, painting a picture of a bill so carefully constructed by constitutional experts, that any change, even those “nice-sounding” ones, he said, would open the legislation up to lawsuits.

The bill, according to Howard, “does not give any students any rights or freedom that they don’t have today. It is a neutral bill. It does not add anything to the law.” The policy would only help school districts avoid expensive lawsuits for suppressing student religious expression, he said.

The bill requires schools to set up “limited public forums” – such as sports events, assemblies, and opening announcements – during which student leaders may express a religious or secular viewpoint. Opponents expressed concern that students of a minority religion in the school would be compelled to participate in religious activities of the majority.

Supporters of the bill cast themselves as champions of little girls whose teachers won’t let them talk about Jesus on Easter, when other kids are talking about chocolate eggs and bunnies. Opponents of the bill agree that students’ First Amendment rights allow them to express religious beliefs in the classroom or for homework assignments, but don’t think that’s a good idea at an obligatory, official school event.

“I believe the intent of the author is to facilitate imposing certain religious values on students regardless of their own faith systems,” said Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth).

Some speculate that supporters attempted to limit debate on the bill last week because they feared defeat, especially after one amendment prohibiting speech that discriminates on the basis of sexual preference had already tainted the legislation.

Perhaps postponing debate until today was an effective strategy, as the bill passed easily 110-33. The governor issued a statement in support of the bill; what the Senate does with this controversial piece of legislation remains to be seen.

Sadly, Rep. Phil King’s bill to keep prisoners locked up in tents doesn’t seem to be moving this session. But if another lawmaker gets his way, criminals in Texas might yet get that camping experience while serving their time

Years of bare-bones funding have left the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department chronically understaffed, often relying on inmate labor from state prisons for basic park maintenance. To fix this staffing crisis, Rep. Harvey Hilderbran’s sweeping parks reform bill gives TPWD just what they need… more inmate labor!

The expansion of inmate labor, to include people locked up in local and county jails, was added to the Kerrville Republican’s bill, before it was voted out of committee last week.

The bulk of the bill involves giving TPWD more money from the sporting goods tax, and handing 18 historic sites over to the Texas Historical Commission (a dubious decision on its own, covered in the April 20 Observer). Park advocates have lately been focusing their outrage on the historic sites transfer — which would suck six percent of the sporting goods tax away from TPWD — and the way the Legislature has cooled to a dramatic increase in parks funding.

By adding local and county inmates to the mix, legislators would make sure any park can take advantage of this cheap labor pool, even if they’re not lucky enough to be near Hunstville or Mountain View.

Joe Arabie of Texas AFL-CIO says that while expanding inmate labor continues to be a popular move among legislators, it’s not a long-term fix for the parks department, and could spell trouble for TPWD’s current staff. “It all depends on how much TPWD gets” in the final budget, Arabie says. “If they don’t get adequate funding, more folks’ll lose their jobs, and that’s more inmate labor they’ll be using.”

A state auditor’s report released in March highlighted poor maintenance and unmanned fee collection booths as particular problems at TPWD. Struggling to stretch its budget, parks and wildlife was forced to cut 73 jobs last November.

Arabie says that judging from the work state prisoners already do in parks, a cash-strapped park superintendent could save plenty of money by handing jobs over to inmates. “Right now they do everything from maintaining roads to picking up trash. Those are jobs that can pay pretty decent wages.”

Last session, a bill by Rep. Leo Berman opened the door for nonprofits and cemetaries to use inmate labor. Later today, the House Government Reform Committee will hear Rep. Debbie Riddle’s bill authorizing fences along the border, built with prison labor. (By the end of 2002, Texas held the second highest state prison population in the nation and the third highest incarceration rate, according to the Urban Institute.)

“Inmate labor is just too readily available these days, and it seems to be growing,” Arabie says. “It’s just too easy a thing [for legislators] to do, instead of doing the right thing and giving [the agencies] the money they need to operate.”

One of the frustrating aspects of covering Sen. Dan Patrick is that every once and awhile he actually makes sense. Today in the Senate, for instance, he argued in favor of CSHB 1892, which doesn’t split hairs about giving local authorities control over toll projects at the expense of the Texas Department of Transportation. The legislation is a jab at Rick Perry’s efforts to expand his office’s power and what many see as his overreaching with the Trans-Texas Corridor. Perry, for his part, sees hypocrisy in the bill and not so subtly hints at a veto.

But back to Patrick. The talk radio host has offered his share of over-the-top comments in his quest to paint himself as a middle-class champion, but it seems like a lot of people would agree with this:

The public has clearly spoken. And the reason I support this bill … is I think there has been this tremendous disconnect between the people of Texas and TxDOT. And they feel that TxDOT is not concerned about what they’re concerned about. That TxDOT is a renegade, runaway agency, out of control — as we know. We couldn’t even get the commissioner to sit down and meet with senators. Which shocks me that the head of any agency can put off meetings with the head of various committees, chairmen of committees, the lieutenant governor, whomever it may be, for weeks at a time. The agencies of Texas need to respond to the people of Texas. And I think the people have been outraged by the Texas Trans Corridor [sic], the selling of the tolls roads, particularly to foreign companies, because they feel they’ve had no input.

He then said the “key element” of the bill is “at least we have local control.”

But Patrick, after saying something that seems to make sense, couldn’t resist saying something nonsensical. After praising Sen. Tommy Williams’s bill for taking action on issues “that the people of Texas are concerned about,” he lamented that more such issues were going neglected — including: “property taxes to border security to ID on voting.” Because there’s been such a huge grassroots demand for voter ID laws. I wasn’t aware “the people of Texas” actually meant “Karl Rove.”

CSHB 1892 passed easily, 27-4.

The House blitzed through the Local and Consent Calendar this morning, with Speaker Pro Tem Sylvester Turner (D-Houston) wielding the gavel like a metronome. Bills placed on this calendar are supposed to be non-controversial so they can pass as a mere formality, without debate or a record vote. Nearly any objection can kill a bill; a rep. has only to state that he intends to discuss the bill for 10 minutes, disqualifying it from the L&C calendar. So in this case, what didn’t pass is more interesting than what gets by the gatekeeper.

Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) was certainly the most active troublemaker, especially early on. The first three bills blocked were thanks to Burnam.

First was HB 465, by Kino Flores (D-Palmview), which would have eliminated appropriate (in Burnam’s view) minimum standards for bail bond sureties that Robert Talton (R-Pasadena) worked to pass just a couple sessions ago. Burnam later confirmed that it was, indeed, “an unholy alliance between Talton and progressives.”

A few bills later, Burnam again stepped to the back mic and kept the words “under God” out of the state’s pledge of allegiance, at least for the time being. HB 1034 by Debbie Riddle (R-Tomball) would update the state’s pledge to match the federal one that has been droning from kids every schoolday for 50 years.

“Ms. Riddle, could you explain to me what about this bill is local?” Burnam asked.

Riddle protested that this bill was more of the consent variety. “I have over 90 co-authors on this bill,” she said. Regardless, it was eventually sent back to committee.

Later, Burnam assistant Doug Lewin said they expect the rather overtly religious bill, which the state may someday have to protect in court (= $$$), to easily pass the full House, but they’re looking for a good floor tussle once it gets there.

Finally, in another twist, Burnam shot down an environmental bill he supports. Rep. Kelly Hancock (R-North Richland Hills) laid out HB 1252, authored by Dennis Bonnen (R-Angleton), which improves TCEQ’s permitting process on air emissions.

“You’re not Mr. Bonnen, are you?” Mr. Burnam astutely observed from the back mic.

“No,” Hancock said as Turner tried to shuffle the bill off the calendar.

Milking it, Burnam went on, “I was going to send greetings to Mr. Bonnen from Dr. Lisa Doggett and Jim Marston.” That would be Jim Marston, the environmental expert (and Texas Observer board member) whom a petulant Bonnen called “ignorant” at a recent hearing. And Lisa Doggett, member of Physicians for Social Responsibility, who Bonnen badgered at the same hearing until she broke down in tears. “So would you extend those greetings to Mr. Bonnen for me,” Burnam continued, “like 10 minutes from now when we finish talking about this bill?”

The bill wasn’t spiked just for spite, though. Burnam assistant Lewin said the rep. did it because Bonnen, as chairman of the House Committee on Environmental Regulation, was “not hearing a whole host of environmental bills that deserve a hearing.” His unwillingness to grant hearings forced progressives to bring the permit bill to the floor because “we need it as an amendment vehicle,” just to get some environmental legislation heard, Lewin said. “That’s not the way the process is supposed to work.”

Rep. Betty Brown’s voter ID bill will be heard in Senate State Affairs Monday morning, sponsored by Sen. Troy Fraser (R—Horseshoe Bay), which is further along than a similar bill made it last session.

In 2005, Sen. Rodney Ellis let everyone know he intended to filibuster the bill, or any voter ID amendments that made it to the floor, and with time winding down in the session (that bill didn’t leave the House until May 3), legislators decided they’d rather get work done than face off on voter ID. The filibuster threat wouldn’t have just killed bills in the Senate. House members whose bills were behind voter ID on the Senate calendar threatened to retaliate with a counter-filibuster in their chamber.

Fast forward two years, and with voter ID again in the Senate’s hands, and Ellis again prepared to filibuster (his staff has a cot and reading materials ready), will the fight be any different this time around?

Inaction is always the safest bet at the Lege, and the filibuster threat, along with the two-thirds rule, are major roadblocks for Republicans. It’s unlikely Lt. Gov. Dewhurst will suspend the rule for this, when he left even his own big project, Jessica’s Law, at its mercy. Not all of the Republican leadership, though, puts as much stock in Senate decorum; sensing a lack of enthusiasm from Dewhurst, Texas GOP chairwoman called him out in the press last month, practically ordering him to pass the voter ID bill. Dewhurst wasn’t amused.

The big difference in the debate this time is that more of the arguments are being made with numbers. In 2005, the argument from Republicans was that we just don’t know how many people are out there voting illegally. Thousands? Millions? Who knows? After two years, the figures are starting to come in.

Research so far says that while impersonating a legal voter is pretty rare (mentioned on page 9 of this Election Assistance Commission report), states with photo ID requirements take a serious hit in voter turnout that effects minority voters worst of all. (The original research behind that story is here.) Meanwhile, Republicans have been busy canvassing county clerks for instances of fraud at the polling place to back up their claims — though none have been prosecuted, or officially investigated in Texas.

Judging from last Monday’s floor debate, all the numbers in the world won’t make this debate any smarter. Both sides came with their bullet points, news clippings and stats. Brown waved a stack of papers she said were records of dead people voting; Rep. Scott Hochberg pointed out that the papers relied on rootsweb.com to prove the person had really died. When Rep. Rafael Anchia said that out of about 20 million Texans, 10 percent don’t have a photo ID, Brown said she didn’t trust those numbers, right after she said 10 percent of 20 million is 200,000.

This ability to take the same stats and see totally different realities was especially clear Monday morning before the debate. Outside on the Capitol steps, a gaggle of Democratic legislators and interest groups warned against the voter ID bill, saying Texas can’t afford to make it any tougher to vote, when our voter turnout is lower than almost any other state’s.

Once they wrapped up, Secretary of State Roger Williams held a press conference inside, to congratulate Travis County for having the state’s best election turnout last November. “Our goal,” Williams said, “has always been to have one hundred percent of Texans voting.”

The issue of predatory payday loans is one we haven’t touched on yet this session. Despite years of national attention, Texas law still allows for loopholes that allow payday lenders to charge excessive interest rates on short-term loans. Profit margins often trap borrowers into a spiral of debt, with low-income borrowers and military families being the most common victims. Buy, hey — no credit check!

Of course, that’s both the reason these lenders are so popular and why they are so predatory. The loans supposedly help cover financial emergencies or pay urgent bills until the next paycheck comes in — a one-time bail-out, in other words. This, theoretically, allows some borrowers to avoid ruining their credit, even if it means paying a typical rate of $15 of interest for every $100 borrowed. On a two-week loan, that works out to a friendly 391% APR. Military families have been especially hard hit, leading to federal legislation capping rates to service members and their kin at the equivalent of 36% APR.

Supporters of these profitable institutions claim they are important to serving the “underbanked” — a particularly poor attempt at newspeak — such as immigrants or people with no (or ruined) credit. Not surprisingly, consumer-rights groups see it differently.

Earlier this session, Don Baylor, with the Center for Public Policy Priorities, published an op-ed that describes how the industry actually makes its money off “trapped borrowers”:

High interest rates make it nearly impossible for workers to repay the loan on time. In fact, workers often have to borrow again just to pay off the interest on the first loan. One emergency can lead to a debt spiral, as payday borrowers take out an average of nine loans per year. The result? More loans, more debt and more bankruptcies.

The Center for Responsible Lending shows that this scenario is not a rarity but the industry norm. Their report says that in 2005, 90 percent “of payday lending revenues are based on fees stripped from trapped borrowers” and “the typical payday borrower pays back $793 for a $325 loan.”

According to the CPPP, only two bills, both by Eliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso), still have a shot this session. One would replicate the federal protection for members of the military. The other, SB 753, would basically try to recreate the research of the CRT. The bill would mandate a data collection system for payday lenders, including those that currently use the loophole to avoid state regulation. Admitting that we have a problem, even through committee reports, might be the first step toward a cure.

Normally here at the Observer blog we cover the law-making, not the litigating. Then again, we weren’t aware that little Marshall, Texas, was home to the “rocket-docket,” where pirates and trolls roamed the courts looking for treasure. Turns out, Marshall’s become the patent litigation capital of the country.

This week’s example was a dubious-seeming lawsuit against Apple claiming “willful and deliberate” patent infringement. The suit was brought by a little-known intellectual property agency, which bought an old patent and is trying to squeeze Apple to see if it can get a settlement (details at Apple Insider).

What’s really interesting is the prominence of Marshall, pop. 25,000, in the legal field. Turns out the dailies wrote a flurry of stories about the transformation of the town’s court a while back. In one, the Dallas Morning-News reported that companies were coming to East Texas because the court so efficiently handles patent cases — usually in half the time, and many less billable hours, than a normal court. The judge for the East Texas District is also known for his expertise in these cases. Thanks to a quirk of federal law, infringement suits across the country can be filed in pretty much any court the plaintiff wants.

Weird.

And while we’re in East Texas, this story out of Beaumont looks primed to go national, after the Wall Street Journal blog picked it up:

A new weekly legal newspaper described as being a “propaganda sheet” for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to promote lawsuit reform is embroiled in a court fight over its journalistic integrity.

Brent Coon, a personal injury attorney, accuses a reporter and an editor with the Southeast Texas Record of trying to tamper with jury selection in an asbestos-related death case he was set to try earlier this month.

Coon described the Southeast Texas Record as a “propaganda sheet” and a “mouthpiece” for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that doesn’t merit Constitutional protections. It only offers biased stories and editorials maligning personal injury lawsuits filed against companies, he said.

Why Beaumont? The WSJ blog explains, “In 2006, the American Tort Reform Association named all of them (Beaumont and two other towns) ‘Judicial Hellholes,’ areas where juries award large verdicts for plaintiffs.” So that’s where those chamber dues go.