Category Archives: State news

Kids who skip school aren’t criminals

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott did right by Texas children and their parents when he signed a bill that decriminalizes truancy.

House Bill 2398 means that kids caught skipping school won’t be tossed into jail. And, as Abbott said when he signed the bill into law, “Criminalizing unauthorized absences at school unnecessarily jeopardizes the futures of our students.”

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/19/texas-decriminalize-truancy-after-abbott-signs-bil/

Critics of the previous practice had said it punishes poor and minority children unfairly. Too many of them come from home backgrounds where education simply doesn’t take the priority that it should. So, the kids skip school to hang out with friends or, sadly, do things they shouldn’t be doing. If they commit a crime while they’re out cavorting when they should be in school, then by all means, arrest them and treat them accordingly. Skipping school by itself shouldn’t be a reason to put a kid into juvenile detention.

The emphasis now falls on school districts to take measures designed to keep kids in school. Since truancy now will be handled as a civil matter, it becomes critical for districts to work with the Texas Education Agency to deal with habitual truants and seek ways to eliminate their impulse to skip school.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “HB 2398 offers preventative measures districts can take to curb unexcused absences and suggests rehabilitative programs for habitual offenders.”

This is a good — and in my view a surprising — move that the governor has taken. He developed a reputation as a “tough on crime” state attorney general. His statement relating to his bill signing suggests he understands that the state can lean too heavily on children who, after all, are just children.

They don’t need to tossed into the slammer because of unexcused absences from school.

Rant, but no rave, about state highway system

The following is a “rant” posted by a friend of mine on a social media outlet.

It goes like this:

Forgive me, but I need to rant for a minute. After driving through almost every state towing a camper over the last eight years, I can say without a doubt that the state of Oklahoma has the worst highway maintenance in the country. … Oklahoma has the audacity to charge tolls on many of these terrible roads and makes you stop and actually pay for these tolls rather than just taking a picture of your license and billing you later. Come on, Oklahoma, you can do better!
Rant over. Thank you for your time and attention.

I want to single out a particular point that deserves an endorsement from yours truly.

It’s the point about having to “stop and actually pay for these tolls rather than just taking a picture of your license and billing you later.”

My wife and I ventured to Oklahoma City a few months for an evening concert and to spend the night before returning home. The concert venue was along a toll road near Edmond. We’ve been spoiled by the Texas toll roads we use when we travel to the Dallas area to visit our granddaughter … and her parents.

We just zip past the cameras posted over the President George Bush Turnpike. It snaps a picture of the license plate of our vehicle and about two weeks later, we get a bill for using the highway. We send the North Texas Transit Authority a check. No fuss at all.

In Oklahoma City, we had to scramble for change when we saw signage warning us of a toll booth ahead. Some of the booths were manned, others were not, meaning we occasionally needed exact change to be let through to the next toll both.

Ugghh!

The sooner we got out of Oklahoma — pun intended, by the way — the better.

Public education needs advocates, not adversaries

Public education, by definition, is intended — as I understand it — to be a resource for the entire public and it shouldn’t push agendas, such as religious beliefs, that need to be promoted at home or in places of worship.

So, it’s fair to wonder whether it’s wise put a home-school advocate into the chairmanship of the Texas State Board of Education. That’s the subject of an interesting essay written for the Dallas Morning News by a Wylie, Texas, parent.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20150710-jamie-anne-richardson-a-home-schooler-at-the-helm-might-not-help-texas-education-or-home-schoolers.ece

Jamie Anne Richardson describes herself as a public school graduate who home-schools her children.

She also opposes Gov. Greg Abbott’s selection of Donna Bahorich — who home-schools her own children — as chair of the SBOE.

I prefer to think of SBOE members as advocates for public schools. They understand that since all Texans buy into public education, that all Texans’ needs to be considered. Bahorich, according to Richardson, has an agenda that likely doesn’t comport with all Texans’ belief systems.

Here’s part of what Richardson writes: “Bahorich has an agenda, and it has the potential to threaten both public schools and home-schoolers. She voted for highly controversial textbooks that many board members said distorted the facts of American history and included such ideas as how Moses helped shape democracy. Slate writer Amanda Marcotte wrote: ‘The school board battles that Republicans have been waging in Texas have nothing to do with improving the quality of the state’s public schools. Most of these efforts are about making the education experience less educational, by injecting conservative propaganda into history class and religious dogma into science class. Texas is bent on undermining public schools, not fixing them. This appointment only serves as further proof.’”

The SBOE has waged this fight in recent times. Social conservatives on the board battle with more moderate board members about textbook selection. Some board members want textbooks to emphasize faith-based theories. Others say — and I happen to agree with them — that matters of religious faith belong in churches, mosques or synagogues, as well as in families’ homes.

Public school belongs to all of us — believers and non-believers alike.

Here’s a bit more of Richardson’s essay: “A lot of families aren’t in the position to home-school, and they can’t afford private schools. Texas public education must appropriately meet these children’s needs without a conservative agenda. How will a parent who has never enrolled a child in a public school but who can afford private education for her kids’ high school years relate to the challenges of the teachers, administrators, student and parents?”

We are blessed to provide public education. I don’t ever recall hearing of a serious desire to establish a public church.

Indeed, isn’t that why we keep those things separate?

Redistricting really and truly matters to us

Redistricting is an issue that usually appeals to policy wonks, political junkies and perhaps nerds who have nothing better to do than think about this stuff.

I’m not really a wonk; I don’t consider myself a nerd. I am a bit of a political junkie.

But the redistricting mess is something that ought to concern everyone who’s affected by state and national government.

That means, um, everyone.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/06/analysis-redistricting-reformers-hopeful-pessimist/

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on its last day of his latest term that Arizona can allow someone other than the legislature to redraw congressional lines. The 5-4 ruling means that the state can appoint a special commission to do the job left normally to partisan politicians.

So, what does that mean for Texas?

Probably not as much as it should, according to the Texas Tribune.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/06/analysis-redistricting-reformers-hopeful-pessimist/

The late state Sen. Teel Bivins of Amarillo used to say that redistricting provided Republicans the “chance to eat their young.” I never quite understood what he meant by Republicans eating their young. Democrats do the same thing.

The Texas Legislature redraws legislative and congressional boundaries after every census is taken. It’s done a horrible job of gerrymandering districts into shapes that make zero sense. It’s a bipartisan exercise in political power retention.

After the 1990 census, Democrats who controlled the Texas Legislature managed to split Amarillo in half in an effort to protect Democratic U.S. Rep. Bill Sarpalius. It worked through one election cycle, as Sarpalius was-re-elected in 1992. Then came 1994 and Sarpalius got tossed out when voters elected Republican Mac Thornberry.

Some of the congressional districts downstate snake along streets and highways. They make zero sense.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “The Arizona case opens the door for voters to take the map-drawing away from the people who are occupationally dependent on the lines on those maps. That’s a fancy way of saying the lawmakers have a conflict of interest when they draw. They’re picking their voters instead of drawing the lines as if they had no interest at all.”

Did you get that? Legislators who draw the lines are the actual beneficiaries of their very own work.

They shouldn’t be involved. The Constitution doesn’t require legislators to do this task; it says only that states must do it.

If legislatures pass that duty to specially appointed commissions, then they are entitled to do so.

So, Texas legislators, what are you waiting for?

Can’t we get a do-over?

Paul Burka apparently came out of retirement — perhaps just briefly — to write this scathing critique for TexasMonthly.com of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/ken-paxton-problem#.VZaoXwXb5tI.twitter

To sum up Burka’s analysis: Paxton’s public service career has been totally without accomplishment, yet he won the race for AG this past year because the state’s current TEA party golden boy, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, endorsed him.

Now the AG is facing a possible criminal indictment in his hometown of McKinney. A special prosecutor is going to take a complaint of securities fraud to a Collin County grand jury. If the attorney general is indicted, what happens then?

Burka noted that a Texas Monthly colleague asked Gov. Greg Abbott that question, and the government couldn’t/wouldn’t answer.

This appears to be one of those times when Texas voters should ask for a do-over from the most recent election.

I know it’s not possible, but I can wish for it anyway … can’t I?

 

Can politics drive a no-bill?

Let’s play out a possible drama that’s developing down yonder in Collin County.

The state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, is being investigated for securities fraud. He admitted to doing something illegal while he was running for AG. He got elected anyway. Paxton has acknowledged that he steered investment clients to a friend without reporting it to the state. There could be a felony indictment in Paxton’s future … or perhaps not.

A special prosecutor has been named and he is likely going to seek an indictment from a grand jury in Collin County, which Paxton represented in the Texas House of Representatives before being elected to the statewide office. Paxton says, not surprisingly, that “politics” is driving this investigation.

So, would “politics” result in the grand jury deciding against an indictment of the Republican AG, given that Collin County also is a heavily GOP county?

I ask only because of the furor that erupted when a Travis County grand jury indicted then-Gov. Rick Perry last year on abuse of power and coercion charges. Travis County is a reliably Democratic part of the state; Perry, of course, is a Republican. The governor accused the grand jury — and the special prosecutor, who also is a Republican, by the way — of political motivation.

Does this politicization allegation work in reverse?

I’m just askin’.

AG Paxton faces possible felony indictment

Do you ever wonder why people vote for political candidates who actually admit to doing something that could get them into serious legal trouble?

How did Texans, therefore, manage to elect a state attorney general — Ken Paxton of McKinney — who had acknowledged he solicited investment clients for a friend without giving the state proper notification?

It’s called “securities fraud.” It’s a serious deal. A Collin County grand jury is going to decide — maybe soon — whether to indict the state’s top lawyer on charges that he committed a felony.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/01/potential-case-against-paxton-appears-grow-serious/

Now, before you get your underwear all knotted up, let’s understand a couple of things.

Paxton is a Republican. Collin County is a heavily Republican county north of Dallas. A special prosecutor — ostensibly an independent-thinking individual — has been brought in to present the case against Paxton, a former state representative from McKinney.

This really and truly isn’t the partisan witch hunt that’s been alleged in Travis County, where another grand jury indicted then-Gov. Rick Perry of abuse of power and coercion of a public official.

No. This case ought to smell differently to those critics.

The most damaging element of this probe would seem to be Paxton’s own acknowledgment that he did something wrong.

And on top of all of that, he’s hired a high-powered former federal judge, Joe Kendall of Dallas, to represent him.

I don’t know what that tells you, but it tells me that Paxton thinks there might be something upon which the grand jury would indict him. He’s going to need the best legal help he can get.

Getting back to my initial question, given that all this was known prior to the election this past November: How in the world did Texans elect this guy?

 

County clerk stands on principle … and quits

Dana Guffey is a principled public servant.

Do I agree with a particular principle that caused her to quit her job as a county clerk in Arkansas? No — but that’s not the point of this post.

My point is that Guffey quit her public service job because she opposes the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalizes gay marriage across the land.

She should be applauded for her principled decision, which has far more integrity than the idea promoted by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who said it is just fine with him if county clerks declined to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Paxton’s view has been endorsed by Texas Republican officeholders.

These county clerks can stay on the job. They just don’t have to fulfill their oath.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/06/arkansas-clerk-will-resign-over-moral-objection-to-issuing-samesex-marriage-licenses/

To their credit, Potter and Randall counties’ clerks — Republicans Julie Smith and Renee Calhoun, respectively — have said they will issue licenses to same-sex couples when the opportunities present themselves. They’ve chosen to fulfill their oath, which means they vow to uphold national and state laws.

Meanwhile, Cleburne County, Ark., Clerk Dana Guffey has chosen to quit rather than do something with which she disagrees.

The Roosevelt County, N.M., clerk quit her job as well when New Mexico legalized gay marriage in 2013. I had no problem with her resignation, either. It, too, became a matter of principle.

No one says a public official must continue to hold a job if they disagree with fulfilling any of its required duties. The highest court in America has determined that since gay marriage is now legal, that it is constitutional — as opposed to state laws prohibiting it. Thus, issuing marriage licenses to gay couples becomes part of the job description.

If you cannot do the job, you quit.

That is what Dana Guffey did.

Judge will marry gays, if duty calls

Potter County Judge Nancy Tanner is on record already on an issue that well could generate a good bit of controversy.

Back when she was running for the office to which she was elected, Tanner — along with her four Republican primary opponents — took part in a candidate forum sponsored by Panhandle PBS. I was privileged to be one of the journalists questioning the candidates.

One of the panelists asked all the candidates a most probing question: Given that Texas law gives county judges the authority to perform marriage ceremonies, would you — as county judge — be willing to perform a ceremony uniting a same-sex couple in matrimony?

Some of the candidates hemmed and hawed. One of them said “no,” he wouldn’t do it.

Tanner’s response? She was unequivocal. If the courts rule that gay marriage is legal in Texas, then she would follow the law. She would marry anyone with a valid marriage license. That would be her responsibility as county judge and she would perform it.

Her answer was straightforward as it could have been. It didn’t harm her at the polls, as she won the GOP primary outright and went on to be elected county judge in November 2014.

As of this morning, the issue hasn’t yet presented itself to Judge Tanner. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said county clerks can refuse to issue marriage licenses if they have a religious objection to the Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized gay marriage.

There’s been no word that I’ve heard about whether Potter County Clerk Julie Smith is going to follow the law or ignore it, per Paxton’s decision.

Tanner’s take on the issue is clear. What’s cloudy and muddled is whether another countywide elected official, Smith, is going to follow the law.

Stay tuned. This could get dicey.

Cruz to county clerks: Sure, go ahead, break the law

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is running hard for president of the United States and he’s now taking every opportunity to have his voice heard.

Let’s take the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that legalizes gay marriage across the nation.

What’s the junior Republican Texas senator’s take on it: It ought to be OK for county clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples if it violates their religious beliefs.

Let’s hold on here, young man.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/27/cruz-clerks-should-be-able-opt-out-gay-marriage-li/

County clerks in Texas take an oath to uphold the law. It doesn’t offer any qualifiers, that they can opt out of fulfilling that oath if their religious faith stands in the way.

Texas county clerks do have an option if they simply cannot authorize a marriage license to a gay couple. They can resign their public office. Indeed, when New Mexico legalized gay marriage this past year, the Roosevelt County clerk did exactly that; she quit rather than do something with which her religious faith did not believe.

“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz said in an interview with The Texas Tribune, “and you look at the foundation of this country — it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

Without government getting in the way? My goodness, senator. We all are able to do all those things. We can go to church, to synagogue, to the mosque — anywhere we wish — and pray to whichever deity in which we believe. The Supreme Court decision handed down this week say not a single word about any of that.

It merely affirms that the 14th Amendment guarantees all U.S. citizens the right to “equal protection” under the law. Thus, they are entitled to marry whomever they wish.

I have no clue what the state’s county clerks are going to do, which of them will adhere to the law and which of them will declare that they just cannot in good conscience issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

Those who refuse will be breaking the law they took an oath to uphold.

It’s interesting to me that Sen. Cruz keeps tossing the word “lawless” around to describe the Supreme Court, the Obama administration — and virtually anyone who disagrees with his world view.

Yet, he’s seeking a way for county clerks to evade the law. That’s my definition of “lawlessness.”