Category Archives: State news

Texas exhibits a progressive streak

Texas has been singled out for something other than its loudmouth politicians, its barbecue and the tendency among some of us to brag with a just a bit too much gusto.

Seems that Texas is a leader in something quite unexpected: incarceration reform and the state’s crime rate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/best-state-in-america-texas-where-both-crime-and-incarceration-rates-are-falling/2014/12/05/e0a0f4a8-7b07-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

Incarceration rates are declining in Texas. The result has been — are you ready for this? — a reduction in crime, according to a Washington Post writer.

According to blogger Reid Wilson: “In the 1990s and 2000s, states pursued the expensive goal of being tough on crime. Now, with budgets strained near breaking points, those states are trying to cut costs by being smart on crime. Reducing crime rates, recidivism and prison populations isn’t just good for society, after all, it’s good for a state’s bottom line.

“And despite Texas’s reputation as the home of draconian crime policies, no other state has adopted more alternatives to traditional incarceration — or reduced by as many the number of prisoners it must pay to house.”

Indeed, the prison-building boom began during the administration of the late Gov. Ann Richards, thought by conservatives to be a squishy soft-on-crime liberal Democrat. Amarillo got two prison units out of it: a maximum-security lockup named after another former governor, William P. Clements, and a medium-security unit named after local educator Nathaniel Neal.

Two legislators, Democratic state Sen. John Whitmire and Republican state Rep. Jerry Madden, introduced a program that provided treatment for criminals rather than a prison bed.

The state’s prison population has decreased by about 5,000 individuals since 2010, according to Wilson’s piece. “The state still executes more people than any other — 10 so far this year — but crime rates have fallen markedly. Recidivism is down from 28 percent to 22.6 percent,” Wilson writes.

This is an interesting development for a state known as a kill ’em quickly kind of place.

I guess it goes to show that a little progressive thought can go a long way.

 

Cruz becomes movement leader

It used to be said in Washington that the “most dangerous place in the world” was the space between U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm and a television camera.

Gramm has left public life and the owner of that title now happens to be another fiery Texas Republican, freshman Sen. Ted Cruz.

According to the San Antonio Express-News headline atop a blog post, the young senator has a movement that carries his name. Call it “Cruz conservatives.”

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/12/cruz-conservatives-abandon-gop-leaders-on-anti-obama-vote/

His ability to muscle his way past more senior Senate Republicans to the center of the political stage in less than two years is utterly astounding. The Cruz Missile exploded on the scene with his GOP primary upset in 2012 of Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, after which it became a foregone conclusion he’d be elected to the Senate from such a heavily Republican state.

These days, if you want some “good copy,” turn to Ted; the glib gab machine is loaded with it. If you want to know what the TEA party wing of the GOP is thinking, ask the junior senator from Texas.

Whatever became of the GOP’s senior pols, such as Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Chuck Grassley of Iowa? Sure, the party has its share of media hounds, such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida (I’ll throw Rubio into that mix, even though he’s been in the Senate only two years longer than Cruz).

To be fair, the Senate Democrats have their share of TV hogs. Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Claire McCaskill of Missouri come immediately to mind.

No one else — in either party — can match Ted the Canadian’s panache.

It used to be said that it took at least half of their first six-year term for senators to figure out the ropes, to earn their spurs and to find their way to the men’s room.

Not so with Ted. The young man is a force of nature — which makes me, at least, want to head to the storm shelter.

 

Governor's new digs need some fixin' up

Greg Abbott’s new residence awaits him and his family.

It’s a nice place, rather old, but quite elegant. It needs a little fixing up.

Abbott takes office in January as Texas’s next governor and the 134-year-old house into which he and his family will live never has had resident quite like the governor-elect. He’s been confined to a wheelchair ever since he was paralyzed in a freak accident in Houston; a tree fell on him while he was jogging, breaking his back.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/05/governors-mansion-tweaked-abbott/

The Governor’s Mansion was updated after an arsonist torched the place in 2008 with a Molotov cocktail. More work needs to be done, as there need to be upgrades to the governor’s office in the Capitol Building across the street from the residence.

There’s a certain slight touch of irony, of course, in the expense the state is incurring to accommodate the governor.

The state must comply with a federal law that requires accessibility for people with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1991 during the George H.W. Bush administration. It’s a wonderful piece of legislation that recognizes the needs of those who are confined to wheelchairs, or who have difficulty accessing public facilities.

Why the touch of irony? Texas is angry at the federal government these days. Outgoing Gov. Rick Perry has made quite a lot of noise railing, ranting and raving about federal “overreach.” The new governor has just filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its handling of immigration policy.

The ADA doesn’t fall into the category of laws that Texas officials want to challenge. It’s there for a good reason: to help disabled Americans gain the access they deserve to public buildings.

Good luck with the repairs, Gov. Abbott.

 

Thrill will be gone soon from Texas Senate

Texas lawmakers of both political parties have told me over the years how much “fun” they had serving in the state Legislature. Both chambers comprised members who had pals on the other side.

They were chums. They shared an adult beverage after hours. They would talk about common interests. They would seek each other’s advice.

I remember meeting the late state Sen. Teel Bivins for the first time. The Republican knew I came to Amarillo from Beaumont and he shared in our first meeting his respect for a Democratic adversary from Southeast Texas, Sen. Carl Parker, who used to refer to Bivins and others of his stripe as “silk-stocking Republicans.” Bivins never took it personally and he actually admired Parker’s debating skill, which he would employ on the floor of the Senate.

My trick knee is telling me those days are about to end.

Dan Patrick will become the next lieutenant governor in January. Patrick has made it known his desire to abandon a couple of Senate traditions: one is the two-thirds rule that requires 21 Senate votes to bring any bill to a vote of the entire of body; the other is the practice of appointing senators of the other party as committee chairs.

Patrick, a Republican, said earlier this year that given Texas’s strong conservative leaning and the fact that Republicans stand like a colossus over the landscape, then — by golly — he would prefer to have an all-GOP lineup among the Senate leadership.

Crank up the steamroller, folks.

What does this mean for what’s left of the party’s more moderate element, which must include Sen. Kel Seliger of Amarillo, who wants to lead the Education Committee?

A friend of mine and I were talking Friday about the next Legislature. He’s been observing Texas politics for decades and he wonders how the state will function when it is run by the TEA party wing of the GOP. He mentioned former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff, a wise man and moderate Republican, and lamented that Ratliff no longer is in public life. “Who would have thought that Kel Seliger would be considered a ‘liberal’ within the Republican Party?” he asked … rhetorically.

There once was a time when serving in the Legislature could be considered “fun.” Hey, it doesn’t pay very much so you look for fun whenever and wherever you can find it.

The tone and tenor of the upper chamber is about to change. For my taste — and perhaps the taste of others around the state — it won’t be for the better.

 

 

Court to ponder Rebel Yell

The First Amendment allows free political speech.

That might include hate speech. Does it include subversive speech? I doubt it strongly.

So … the U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear sometime next spring an appeal to allow Texas license plates to carry a symbol of the Civil War and what many millions of Americans consider a symbol of hate. Oh, and the Civil War? That was an act of sedition by the Confederate States of America that declared war against the United States of America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/05/supreme-court-confederate-flag_n_6277460.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Texas had rejected a proposed to have its license plates featuring the Confederate battle flag. A Texas chapter of the Sons of Confederate appealed, saying the ban violated the group’s freedom to make a political statement.

Now it goes the highest court in the land.

Part of me understands the First Amendment argument. A bigger part of me, however, is grossly offended by the battle flag.

I do not have any Confederate heritage in my background. However, I’ve witnessed the battle flag symbol waved proudly by Ku Klux Klan members demonstrating against the rights of African-Americans. If there ever was a more profound symbol of hate, I haven’t yet seen it.

Does this state — or any state in 21st century America — really want to sanction a display of this symbol with public money provided by Texans who have reason to be grossly offended by its presence on automobile license plates?

Texas said “no” once already.

Will the Supreme Court uphold the state’s refusal?

I am hoping it does.

 

Greg Abbott: plaintiff's lawyer in chief

It’s 31 lawsuits — and counting — for Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general who’s about to become the state’s next governor.

Abbott has sued President Obama over the president’s recent executive order that protects about 5 million illegal immigrants from immediate deportation. He made good on his campaign promise to sue Obama over this issue.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/03/greg-abbott-sues-over-executive-action-immigration/

I must pose some inquiries about this action.

First, how much are these lawsuits costing the state? It strikes me that Abbott — a self-proclaimed fiscally conservative Republican — is running up an incalculable legal tab as he challenges the president over immigration, health care reform and whatever else.

Second, as a Republican who has support tort reform efforts to rein in the cost of court settlements, he’s becoming one of those dreaded plaintiff’s lawyers Republican officeholders have loved to hate. We’ve all heard the mantra that Democrats are plaintiff-friendly, while Republicans look out for the interests of defendants in civil court proceedings. Texans seem to have sided with the GOP on that one, electing an all-Republican state Supreme Court, which rules fairly routinely in favor of business interests who’ve been sued by plaintiffs.

And third, does Abbott really have a case against the president or is he being pressured by the TEA party wing of the GOP to do something — dammit! — to stick it in Barack Obama’s ear? The Texas Tribune reports: “‘It’s ill advised. I don’t think he has standing. He gets the basic terminology wrong, and he protests too much when he says he’s not politicizing it, because all of it is simply about the politics of it,’ said Michael Olivas, an immigration lawyer and professor at the University of Houston. ‘He characterizes what the president did as an executive order — it is not an executive order. It’s executive action.'”

I didn’t used to consider Abbott to be a fiery conservative. I’ve long thought of him as a more thoughtful politician. He could be feeling the heat from the right wing of his party to carry through with his campaign pledge to sue the president one more time.

Well, he’s got 31 lawsuits in the can already. For my money, enough is enough.

 

 

Panetti's date with death delayed

I was certain Scott Louis Panetti was a dead man.

Then the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in to give the lunatic a stay of execution in the Texas prison death chamber.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/03/schizophrenic-inmate-be-executed-wednesday-night/

What’s next? Well, for starters Panetti deserves something he’s lacked for the past seven years: a mental competency evaluation.

Panetti’s guilt in the 1992 double murder of his mother- and father-in-law is beyond dispute.

What’s at issue here is his competence. He suffers from schizophrenia. He served as his own attorney in his 1995 trial. He sought to call as witnesses President John Kennedy and Jesus Christ. He wore clown suits in court.

The fact that the Texas criminal justice system allowed this man to go to trial under these circumstances speaks to the travesty the state occasionally allows to occur in its courtrooms.

Gov. Rick Perry has been bombarded with requests to delay the execution — which was set for tonight. He pleas came not from bleeding-heart liberals, but also from committed Christian conservatives. One doesn’t expect Perry to heed the pleas of the lefties, but the righties might have some sway with the Republican governor and possible 2016 presidential candidate.

The 5th Circuit’s stay order was brief. It does allow for judges “to fully consider the late arriving and complex legal questions at issue in this matter.”

A competency examination — a thorough and comprehensive exam — needs to be the first and last orders of business here. Such an exam can determine whether Panetti is truly nuts or is faking it, as some have suggested in arguing for his execution.

Panetti committed the crime. Should he die for it, given his demonstrated craziness? No.

 

This guy is a goner

Scott Panetti is as good as dead, sad to say.

He’s a Texas death row inmate who’s set to be executed Wednesday for the horrific deaths in 1992 of his mother- and father-in-law. His guilt is not in question. His mental state, though, is at the heart of a dispute over whether he deserves to die for his crime.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/01/Paroles-Board-Denies-Panetti-Execution-Halt/

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has ruled against granting him a delay in his date with death. That means it’s now up to outgoing Gov. Rick Perry and the Court of Criminal Appeals to determine Panetti’s fate.

Panetti is diagnosed with acute schizophrenia. He didn’t even get a fair trial, as he represented himself and sought to call as witnesses Charles Manson and Jesus Christ.

Texas law, though, allows loony defendants to engage in such nonsense, even when it appears to impinge on their rights to fair and impartial justice.

Panetti never should walk free. He doesn’t deserve to be put to death for this crime.

Do not expect Gov. Perry or the state’s highest criminal court to spare him. The Texas criminal justice system just isn’t built for compassion.

 

GOP field taking shape for 2016

 

You can now — it appears — count lame-duck Texas Gov. Rick Perry as an unofficially official candidate for president in 2016.

Oh, boy! This is going to be fun.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/rick-perry-2016-campaign-113210.html?ml=po

Perry is courting wealthy Texas political donors, holding out his hand, polishing his message, showing off his new self and getting ready to make yet another run for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.

Politico reports he has some company among those looking for that Texas largesse. It consists of a fellow Texan, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and a former Texan whose family is well-known around here, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

Frankly, the Perry-Cruz competition for the GOP nomination — if it materializes — could prove to be the most fascinating political drama I’ve ever seen. I’m not crazy about either of them. I’ll give credit where it’s due, though: Cruz muscled his way onto the national stage instantly after winning the Senate seat in 2012 while Perry has demonstrated — despite his sometimes prickly public persona — to be a powerful vote-getter in Texas.

The dance they’ll engage in will involve both of them trying to outflank each other on the right, where they’ve both staked out some sizable territory of their own already. One of them — or maybe both — might fall of the stage.

Despite what you might have read about Cruz’s relationship with the so-called “mainstream liberal media,” they love each other. Cruz loves the attention the media give him and the media love him because he is so damn quotable. Perry’s relationship with the Texas media has been rocky at times, particularly since his notable absence from any editorial board interviews during his 2010 campaign for re-election as governor. But he’s burnishing that part of his dossier now as well.

Then there’s Jeb. His last name counts for something in Texas, even if it isn’t worth squat anywhere else. He’s the son and brother of two former presidents, one of whom is held in increasingly high regard (that would be Poppy), the other is, well, still trying to reconstruct his legacy. Jeb Bush, though, is smooth, moderate (by comparison to Perry and Cruz), articulate and marketable among Latino Republicans, given that his wife is Latina and one of his sons, George P. Bush, is about to become Texas land commissioner.

Perry’s 2012 effort fell flat. He’s hoping for a different result this time around. As Politico reports: “’If Gov. Perry is going to run, he’s going to be better prepared, and he’s going to have the resources necessary to compete,’ said Henry Barbour, a Republican national committeeman who is helping plan for a Perry 2016 campaign and organizing next week’s donor sessions.”

So, here we go. Hold on. It’ll be fun … I hope.

 

 

Now the judge opposes death penalty

So, we’re supposed to sing high praise because a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge has declared his opposition to the death penalty.

Is that what we’re supposed to do?

I would, except that Judge Tom Price is about to leave the state’s highest criminal appellate court in January, which makes his declaration a mere symbolic act.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/26/criminal-appeals-judge-price-i-oppose-death-penalt/

Price, who’s being replaced by Bert Richardson — the judge presiding over Gov. Rick Perry’s abuse of power court proceedings — wrote this, according to the Texas Tribune: “Given a substantial amount of consideration to the propriety of the death penalty as a form of punishment for those who commit capital murder, and I now believe that it should be abolished.”

Price’s statement came as he was one of three dissenting votes rejecting an appeal for clemency for death row inmate Scott Panetti, who’s scheduled to die by lethal injection in just a few days. Panetti’s been diagnosed with acute schizophrenia and death penalty foes have sought to have his death sentence commuted.

Price now is on board with them.

But he’s leaving the court.

So what good is his declaration … now?

Perhaps he can carry his opposition into the private sector and try to talk some reason into his former CCA colleagues who continue to reject other appeals on similar grounds.

“My conclusion is not reached hastily,” Price wrote in his dissent. “Rather, it is the result of my deliberative thought process from having presided over three death-penalty trials as a trial court judge and having decided countless issues related to capital murder and the death penalty as a judge on this court.”

Price didn’t seek re-election this year. He’s served on the all-Republican CCA since being elected in 1996. I applaud his coming out against capital punishment. I now hope he carries the campaign forward.