The Texas Observer

Question: What all do we know about these 16 propositions on the ballot Nov. 6?

Answer: the big bond props (4,12, 15) are unusually expensive; Prop 4 is a little too prison-friendly; and Prop 11 would make certain votes in the Texas legislature a matter of public record.

We have also established that most of the time whole slates of these amendments to the Texas Constitution pass. Every once in a while, a proposition pisses off enough people that it manages to fail, but it doesn’t happen often.

Question: Since damn near all of these will pass, what do their proponents say they will do?

Answer: There are a few slam-dunks left on the table. There’s Prop 2, which provides bonds for ‘college access’ loans — loans that are usually repaid, and which otherwise wouldn’t be available, particularly since they are not reserved for need-based aid.

Propositions 5, 6, and 8 fit into this ’slam-dunk’ category. Five will allow small towns to use tax breaks to grow their own downtown districts. Six exempts cars from the property tax if they are also used personally. And Eight would make sure homeowners get a paper copy of a home equity loan agreement before borrowing. Like I said, these are pretty simple.

Prop 9, I think, is also a likely yes. Nine will give 100 percent disabled veterans a 100 percent exemption on their property tax. This one is going to pass like crazy.

Proposition 16 has just as much merit, but it may fall victim to its price tag. On the ballot, it will read:

The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $250 million to provide assistance to economically distressed areas.

The prop allegedly helps Texans in rural and poor areas get modern water and sewer infrastructure. It’s hard to argue against that. But the big figure could pose problems.

Question: What about the props you haven’t mentioned?

Answer: ah, yes, you mean Props 7, 13, & 14. Well, hell. You never know when to expect the next prop pop quiz.

Question: What proposition on the November ballot will most affect the Texas Legislature?

Answer: That would be Proposition 11, authored by Rep. Dan Branch (R-Highland Park). This is how it will appear on the ballot:

The constitutional amendment to require that a record vote be taken by a house of the legislature on final passage of any bill, other than certain local bills, of a resolution proposing or ratifying a constitutional amendment, or of any other nonceremonial resolution, and to provide for public access on the Internet to those record votes.

This amendment has ‘open government’ written all over it, and as Branch says, “open government is akin to motherhood and apple pie.”

Currently, what votes are recorded in either body of the Texas legislature are governed by the rules of that body. In effect, there’s no guarantee that the public has a right to know how members vote. Although in the House any member can call for a record vote. Prop 11 would write it into the Texas Constitution.

There is some consternation over the fact that these record votes will be mandated — that is, the big board in the House will have to light up, the Senate’s scribes will have to count heads a lot more — but only on final passage. Anybody who has examined a full session’s journals knows that most final passage votes (on third reading) are non-controversial and lopsided. The real horse-trading is done on the first two votes. Lawmakers have as of yet balked at mandating that the all-important second reading vote be public.

Some have raised the issue of the cost of every record vote, but Branch says that argument does not hold water.

“I found the dollar amount to be one of the weakest arguments,” Branch said. The cost is minimal, but it will cause a lot more late hours in the proofreading rooms of the journals.

Branch said the Texas Legislative Council has estimated that the average time between the Texas Speaker’s call for a record vote and the coming down of the gavel is 20-45 seconds — a far cry from D.C.’s 20-minute window.

“At some point it gets back to the larger issue,” he said. “The benefit of having an engaged citizenry… outweighs (the cost issue) by a country mile.”

Branch says the point of Prop 11 is to get a record vote on all successful bills.

“I just didn’t want anything to ever leave a chamber without a record,” he said. He also noted that all bills require a record vote to get out of committee. And, Branch says, one can always go farther in pressing for open government. He says the ‘final passage’ approach is reasonable and won’t unduly change the amount of time taken up by voting.

“The time argument has some meaning if you materially increase the time taken up,” Branch said, by holding more record votes. But, he said, he intends to sit down with Parliamentarian Terry Keel and discuss ways to facilitate voting by members — through technology and process.

Branch said he did not want to speak for the Texas Senate, but Prop 11 would have a binding effect on both houses.

My opinion? The journals, vote-counters and webmasters better get ready, because this baby is likely to pass.

One of the key battlegrounds in the fight to see who will be the next speaker of the Texas House is in the districts of the ‘Craddick D’s‘ — that’s shorthand for the dozen or so Democrats that openly supported Tom Craddick (R-Midland) in his struggles to hold onto the speaker’s chair in the last regular session. Democratic activists have had quite a bit of success deposing Craddick D’s in the past. Think Ron Wilson, Al Edwards, Glenn Lewis, and Jaime Capelo.

One locus of the action this primary cycle will be the South Texas border county of Hidalgo, where two Hispanic Craddick D’s have strong challengers. The county is split in two: District 36, that hugs the border with Mexico and incorporates the Valley cities of Hidalgo, Mission, McAllen, and Pharr — and District 40, which contains the northern, more rural half of the county and the smaller border communities to the west such as La Joya and Sullivan City.

Rep. Aaron Peña (D-Edinburg) represents District 40. Rep. Kino Flores (D-Hidalgo) represents District 36. Both have been repeatedly rewarded by Craddick for their loyalty. Flores chairs the Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee, while Peña chairs the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee.

Peña is facing a rematch against Eddie Saenz. Saenz is an engineer that ran against Peña in 2004 in a race that featured plenty of mud, money, and bad blood. Peña trounced Saenz in that race, winning 63.45 percent of the vote. At the time, Saenz ran at Peña from the right. This time, Peña has a record that can be attacked from the left. It remains to be seen whether Saenz can make the transition and do the shoeleather campaigning necessary to win. Saenz has already garnered the endorsement of the mayor of Edinburg, according to his blog. Peña also has a blog. This one will be fun to follow. Watch as both candidates blog maddeningly right up until the Texas Democratic primary on March 4.

Former teacher and probation officer Sandra Rodriguez has announced her intent to challenge Kino Flores. Rodriguez has the benefit of being endorsed by the well-funded Annie’s List. Her husband, Fernando Macias, is a former state district judge. Here’s a good preview of the race from the McAllen Monitor. Rodriguez’ best asset is her opponent. Flores has made plenty of enemies in his solidly Democratic district with his heavy handed approach, including a public feud with local power broker Billy Leo. Rodriguez has already attacked Flores for skipping votes on important Democratic issues such as voter ID and helping to enable a leadership that has actively tried to kick children off of CHIP.

In both contests, the issue of the Craddick D’s crucial votes to keep Craddick in power are figuring prominently. Flores and Peña are arguing that their devotion to the speaker has benefited their impoverished communities. Their opponents are questioning the incumbents’ Democratic credentials and their support for the Democrat’s agenda.

Stay tuned.

Looks like the Texas Department of Transportation has its own agenda in Washington, D.C. Last week, several Texas newspapers reported that TXDOT is lobbying Congress to convert your favorite freeway into a tollway. Texas Legislators are aghast at the department’s plan, euphemistically called ‘Forward Momentum’ — that would change federal law to allow the use of equity capital to toll such oft-used roadways as existing interstates.

Rick Perry’s spokesman Robert Black says it’s all okay, since free highways cannot be converted to tollways without the approval of local voters. But it’s hard to nail down what is crazier here. I mean, is it easier to imagine tolls on I-35 or a state agency with its own paid federal lobbyists trying to circumvent the stated goals of almost every lawmaker in Texas?

To make matters worse, in February members of the Texas Senate specifically chided TXDOT for this kind of behavior. You can watch video of it here (the relevant part of the February 5 Senate Finance meeting starts 1:59:00). But, in case watching Senate hearings is not your thing, let me just summarize.

The executive director of TXDOT and a commissioner from the Texas Transportation Commission were asked by senators about $1 million spent on lobbying contracts for an outfit called the Rodman Company. Senator Royce West (D-Dallas) managed to confirm that upwards of $500,000 was being spent by the agency to lobby D.C. on efforts relating to the Trans-Texas Corridor. Despite the fact that TTC has been sold to voters as a project that would require zero taxpayer dollars, TXDOT had apparently been paying private lobbyists to pave the way for federal legislation that would allow the department to move forward on all things TTC. Needless to say, the senators were not pleased.

In the dry language of the Senate Research Center summary:

Senator Shapiro, Senator Ogden, and Senator Whitmire questioned whether these efforts were necessary or effective and stated that the issue should be pursued through Texas’ Congressional delegation rather than private lobbyists. Senator Eltife stated that the expenditure was “wasteful, unnecessary, and disgraceful.”

The conservative Heritage Alliance, an organization whose “goal is to identify 1 percent of the citizens in each legislative district who support traditional values” and provide them with services like “daily email reminders to pray for key leaders,” has released their report cards for the session. In other words, it sounds like a report card for folks who self-identify as the conservative elite.

Sixteen legislators made the grade, voting with Heritage’s recommendations 90 percent of the time or better on dozens of bills they tracked. The lawmakers, all from the House, will be honored at Heritage’s 2007 Freedom Texas Celebration, scheduled for October in Dallas. The list of honorees, all Republicans, reads like a Who’s Who of members distinguished by their wingnuttery this session: Jodie Laubenberg, Linda Harper-Brown, Debbie Riddle, Charlie Howard, Wayne Christian, and so on.

Down at the very bottom of the list, with scorses between 15-17 percent, were usual suspects Lon Burnam and Jessica Farrar, both Democratic Reps. On the whole the Senate had a much smaller range of scores, with Republican Robert Nichols topping out at 79 percent and Democrat Eliot Shapleigh bringing up the rear at 40.

The full list of scores is here. The grading criteria is linked on that page, but it boils down to: limited government, free enterprise, (fewer) taxes, and traditional values.

Our original post with other 80th Session scorecards has also been updated.

God bless the poor souls who try to quantify whether the Texas Legislature is friendly to poor kids. A Houston nonprofit recently compiled a legislative scorecard on children’s issues, and it seems the task proved too ugly to complete.

Children at Risk is a nonprofit devoted to improving the lives of kids in Houston and around the state through “research, education and influencing public policy.” In addition to encouraging the federal government to expand SCHIP, the center just released its legislative report card that grades each member of the high-profile Houston delegation based on how they voted for children’s issues. (The center’s full 80th Session wrap-up is here.)

Overall, Children at Risk gave the entire Legislature a grade of C+.

We were encouraged by the legislature’s prioritizations of certain children’s issues such as: CHIP reform, increased funding for early childhood education and dropout prevention programs, and reform of the Texas Youth Commission. However, these victories for children were coupled with a number of defeats. The 80th Legislative Session failed to pass legislation on the following important issues: clear and transparent methodology to calculate high school graduation rates, parity for mental health services, reform of alternative education programs, and environmental reform to improve Texas’ air quality.

The grading criteria was based on their tracking of several categories of legislation: education, physical and mental health, human trafficking, child welfare, juvenile justice, and the environment.

Overall, the Houston delegation got a B. Grading individual legislators apparently proved problematic, especially if you’re uncomfortable saying some lawmakers voted against kids. Grades for each Houston lawmaker are here (along with the grading methodology), and if you skim that list, it sure seems like Houston knocked it out of the park this session — A’s and B’s all down the line. Except for all those curious I’s.

Turns out, rather than grade the House Republicans who didn’t support bills Children at Risk thought were important, the organization gave them a gentleman’s Incomplete — the same grade as the legitimately absent Sen. Mario Gallegos. Every I is explained by a form letter: “CHILDREN AT RISK does not believe that anyone would intentionally ignore the needs of our children. Although Rep.Talton did not vote favorably on all the bills we prioritized, most notably the CHIP reform bill, we are confident that by working more closely with him in the future we can encourage Talton to become a strong advocate for children.”

Not sure what the point of handing out a report card is if you don’t distinguish between a C and an F, but for what it’s worth here’s a list of the I’s (excluding Gallegos): Reps. Bill Callegari, Beverly Woolley, Charlie Howard, Patricia Harless, Joe Crabb, Gary Elkins, and Robert Talton.

Receiving A’s: Sen. John Whitmire, Reps. Garnet Coleman, John Davis, Scott Hochberg, Rick Noriega, Sylvester Turner, and Borris Miles.

Heather Burcham, the woman who made multiple impassioned appearances at the Capitol to argue for the importance of the HPV vaccine, lost her battle with cervical cancer Saturday. She died in Houston at age 31.

Because of an initial misdiagnosis when she was 26, Burcham and her doctors didn’t discover the cancer until it was too late. She lived the final months of her life devoted to telling people about the dangers of HPV and cervical cancer, a devotion that landed her at the center of a political firestorm last legislative session.

“I don’t want to have lived in vain. I don’t want my life to have no purpose whatsoever,” she told ABC News in February, when she was named their Person of the Week. “And if I can help spread the word about cervical cancer, and the HPV vaccine, then I haven’t lived in vain.”

I remember seeing Burcham in the Capitol on several occasions. The first time I happened to sit behind her at a committee hearing, after she had just endured her first day in the media spotlight, doing photo ops with the governor and interviews with state outlets. The committee hearing started very late, and then the initial “expert” testimony ran for several hours. You could see the struggle Burcham was having with her body — exhaustion pressing heavier and heavier on her slender frame.

In the end, that night Burcham was outlasted by habitual sophists like Dennis Bonnen, whose bill led the charge against Perry’s vaccine mandate. Sometime around midnight, Burcham turned to the Perry staffers who had been accompanying and supporting her and indicated she just couldn’t hold out any longer.

(Whatever disagreements one can have with Perry over his handling of the vaccine or the cruelty of his beloved tort reform to limit the access patients like Burcham have to the judicial system, we respect the sincerity in his relationship with her.)

Hours later, hearing chairwoman Dianne White Delisi called out Burcham’s name to testify. It was early in the session at that point, but looking back I can remember no moment simply so sad as the silence when no response came. Delisi instructed the clerk to record Heather Burcham — against the bill, not testifying.

Near the end of the session, the governor played a personal message from Burcham at the press conference announcing he would not veto the bill blocking his vaccine mandate. The video is available on YouTube and embedded below. Observer coverage of the HPV saga is here: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6.