Tag Archives: Texas Legislature

State news

Drug-test elected officials? No, but the idea still intrigues

State Sen. Eddie Lucio has this goofy notion that Texas ought to require all elected officials submit to mandatory drug testing.

The Brownsville Democrat has inserted it into an amendment, which means the Senate could consider it before adjourning in a few weeks.

Dallas Morning News blogger/editorial writer Rodger Jones is adamantly opposed to the idea.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/05/should-every-elected-official-across-texas-be-drug-tested.html/

I guess I share his opposition — to a degree.

But the idea of drug testing elected officials has a certain element of poetic irony to it, if you think about it for a moment.

City council members, school board trustees, college regents, state legislators, county department heads and statewide officeholders all have the authority to require testing of regular Texans. You know, folks like you and me.

Why not, then, require them to do the same thing? Why not subject the leaders who make these policy decisions to the very same hassles they place on the rest of us?

Jones writes: “… government gets horribly Big Brother-ish in presuming to extract samples from one’s body and laying out test results for all to see. Elected officials are private citizens first, public servants second. There should be a zone of privacy for them, just as there should be a zone for welfare recipients. Government should not stick its nose into our private affairs.”

Private citizens first, public servants second? By my way of thinking, elected officials take on a sort of co-equal standing. They are both private citizens and public servants equally, again in my view. How does one particular standing trump the other?

So, if they’re public servants and they hand out policy decisions that affect the lives of actual full-time private citizens, why is it unfair to require them to do the same thing they demand of others?

Jones is spot on about one point, though, in his opposition to Lucio’s idea. It’s impractical. It would create many thousands of urine samples and require government to test them for drugs.

It’s too expensive.

Still, a part of me wishes we could do such a thing.

 

State news

Not making nice in Legislature

Texas legislators are ripping a page out of the congressional playbook.

Some of ’em are treating others of ’em badly in public.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/pickett-tosses-stickland-out-committee

It’s not supposed to be like this, gentlemen.

House Transportation Committee Chairman Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, tossed Rep. Jonathon Strickland, R-Bedford, out of a committee hearing because Strickland falsely signed up witnesses for a hearing.

Then the House of Representatives removed evidence of the argument from the record.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/house-takes-its-dirty-laundry-internet

As R.G. Ratfcliffe notes in his Texas Monthly blog, Strickland might have committed a crime if he did as Pickett alleged he did.

But holy cow, man! How ’bout behaving like grownups in public.

You fellows do work for us — and some of us out here might not like what we’re seeing.

 

State news

Which is it? Do red-light cameras work?

Those who believe red-light cameras at dangerous intersections do little or nothing to improve traffic safety ought to read the blog attached to this post.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/can-texas-house-handle-the-truth-on-benefits-of-red-light-cameras.html/

Dallas Morning News blogger/editorial writer Rodger Jones tries to remind those doubters that the cameras actually do some good and that he’s found some research that backs that notion up.

The Texas Legislature appears ready to forbid cities from deploying the cameras. Amarillo has done so and it has used the money generated by the fines collected to improve traffic safety in the city; state law requires cities to dedicate the money to that cause.

State Sen. Bob Hall, R-Edgewood, says the cameras don’t do any good. Jones disputed Hall’s contention and found some research by an institute affiliated with Texas A&M University that says the opposite of what Hall contends. Jones quotes the findings: “New research suggests that red light cameras help to reduce the number of crashes at intersections where they are installed. The study, although limited to Texas, is one of the most extensive thus far in the nation, and researchers say the findings demonstrate that the automated enforcement method offers an effective means of preventing crash-related deaths and injuries.”

There’s more. Take a look at it.

The point is that legislators have been accusing cities of implementing the cameras as money-makers. Never mind the restrictions placed on how cities can spend the revenue derived from enforcing laws against those who run red lights. The state sets strict limits on how cities can spend the money.

It’s also interesting that some legislators have become overnight civil libertarians, saying that motorists are denied the right to “face their accuser.” Hogwash! Motorists can appeal the fines and in some cases, such as in Amarillo, they’ve been able to persuade authorities to dismiss the charge.

Whatever. Jones’s blog makes the case that lawmakers such as Sen. Hall aren’t telling the whole story as they seek to strip cities of a tool some of them are using to make their streets safer.

State news

Texas power honeymoon is over

Is the honeymoon over among the Big Three of Texas’s state government?

Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Joe Straus sat down this week for some breakfast. It reportedly didn’t go too well.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/big-three-breakfast-blows

Patrick purportedly complained that Abbott and Straus were “picking on me” and said he wanted it to stop.

Abbott, Straus and Patrick all issued statements later, with the governor saying he had a “strong working relationship” with the lieutenant governor.

I daresay this might be a precursor of things to come in Austin, with Patrick marching to his own cadence as he runs the state Senate. Meanwhile, Abbott and Straus might be more inclined to operate on a mainstream conservative level.

R.G. Ratliffe, writing for Texas Monthly, reports that Patrick and Straus argued over Patrick’s assertion that the House isn’t moving quickly enough on Senate-passed legislation. Patrick declared a “new day” in Austin when he was inaugurated, got the Senate to pass some tough legislation — open-carry of firearms, tax cuts and moving the Public Integrity Unit to the control of the Department of Public Safety. The Man of the House, Straus, has let the legislation simmer far longer than Patrick wants.

Patrick, being the take-charge guy he is, now is trying to pressure Abbott to act on his behalf. Abbott apparently isn’t having any of it.

Thus, the three of them are at each other’s throats.

I believe some Texas pundits might have foreseen this kind of friction when Abbott and Patrick were campaigning for their respective offices.

Patrick is a tiger. Abbott is more, um, reserved. Straus? He’s more like Abbott than Patrick.

Might there be a feud building between Patrick and Abbott — that might lead to a primary challenge for governor, say, in 2018?

Let’s all stay tuned, shall we?

 

local news, State news

'Home rule' on red-light cameras? Apparently not

You live in a Texas city and your elected officials — the folks who represent you and your neighbors — have decided to install cameras at dangerous intersections to deter motorists from running red lights.

Your city has the authority to do such a thing under Texas law. Not as it relates to red-light cameras.

The Texas Senate has sent to the House a bill that would ban cities from deploying the cameras, as Amarillo and dozens of other cities have done.

Well, there goes home rule.

Sen. Bob Hall has declared the cameras to be a failure across the state.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article19246596.html

The bill would allow the cameras on toll roads. Therefore, given that there isn’t a toll road within hundreds of miles of the Panhandle, we won’t have the cameras.

I believe it is a mistake for the Legislature to seek to read the minds of mayors, council members, city managers and traffic engineers on this issue.

Are the cameras popular among Amarillo motorists? No. It’s because they catch them doing something they aren’t supposed to do, which is try to sneak past street signals that have turned red or, in some drastic cases, race through the lights from a dead stop.

Then again, I remain unconvinced that most motorists detest the cameras enough to merit their removal. Some of them do and they have protested loudly.

Their voices have been heard — way down yonder in Austin.

State news

Open carry bill set to become state law

Believe it or not, I’m going to keep an open mind on open carry.

The Texas House of Representatives has approved a bill that would allow licensed concealed carry holders to wear their sidearms openly. The state Senate already had approved it. Gov. Greg Abbott says he’ll sign it when it gets to his desk.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/20/open-carry-headed-governors-desk/

Some legislative Democrats had sought to soften the bill by allowing big-city residents to vote on whether to opt out of the state law. That was a reasonable amendment to the bill, given that urban residents have a different view of open carry legislation than rural residents. Someone in the Oak Cliff neighborhood of south Dallas thinks differently of the bill than, say, someone living in Dumas or Dalhart.

“Rural open carry is different than densely populated open carry,” state Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, said. “If you put this to a vote in big cities, I think people are going to say resoundingly no.”

The amendment failed.

Now that I am resigned to open carry legislation set to become law, I’ll respect the Legislature’s decision — even though I disagree with it.

I now will hope that open carry doesn’t become the monstrosity I feared back in 1995 when the Legislature approved concealed carry legislation.

The concealed carry bill hasn’t produced shootouts in intersections, for which I am grateful.

Time will tell on this open-carry legislation. I’m going to hope for the best.

 

medical news, State news

'Gay conversion therapy' going strong in Texas

2 Comments

Texas politicians seem to think they’re the only correct thinkers in a nation that seems to be going in the opposite direction.

An example? Gay conversion therapy, which is drawing opposition from medical professionals and politicians throughout the land, appears to be showing no signs of slowing down in Texas, according to the Texas Tribune.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/18/opposition-gay-conversion-therapy-grows/

Have mercy on us all.

Gay conversion therapy seeks to persuade people that they aren’t actually gay. Never mind scientific evidence that someone’s sexual orientation is built into their DNA the same way, say, their hair and eye colors are built in.

That hasn’t stopped politicians from suggesting that a healthy dose of religious teaching, which the critics contend is occurring, will get rid of someone’s homosexual urges. As the Tribune reports, “The American Psychiatric Association has condemned it, and experts say it can cause mental harm to individuals.”

Hey, what does a group of trained medical professionals know?

The Tribune reports further: “David Pickup, who practices reparative therapy in California and Texas, said he was upset by the president’s words last week and feels reparative therapy has been mischaracterized.

“’Words hurt sometimes, and some of our clients have been upset about his public condemnation of these things — it has really hurt their feelings,’ Pickup said. ‘Reparative therapy is there for people who believe that for them, homosexual impulses arise not because of something genetic but because of emotional and sexual abuse.’”

State Rep. Celia Israel, D-Austin, has been trying to get a hearing before the House State Affairs Committee. She’s been stonewalled so far. Israel is hoping at least to get the subject on the table for some open debate.

Something tells me that with conservatives owning a supermajority in the House of Representatives and a strong majority in the Senate, the chances of at least a hearing are somewhere between slim and none.

Meanwhile, Texas will stand increasingly alone in standing by the notion that you can convert gay people into something they are not.

 

State news

Open-carry still causes concern

4 Comments

Concealed-handgun carry legislation was thought to be of concern when the 1995 Texas Legislature approved it.

It has proved effective in at least one regard: Thinking that motorists might be carrying a gun with them has made other motorists a lot more circumspect if they get cut off on the street.

Now the 2015 Legislature is considering an open-carry bill. This one give me pause.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/14/open-carry-bill-poised-clear-texas-house/

Why is that? I’m concerned about what some have indicated might become a problem — which is that someone carrying a handgun openly could become a target in the event shooting starts somewhere.

Interesting, yes? I share that concern.

The bill got stalled today in the Texas House of Representatives on a procedural glitch. It’s likely to come up in a day or two and the House is likely to approve it.

I’d bet real American cash that Gov. Greg Abbott would sign it if gets to his desk.

That doesn’t alleviate my concern about open-carry legislation becoming a state law.

I continue to wonder whether carrying guns openly on one’s holster created a safer society back in the old days when it was customary. Will the presence of guns being carried in the open today make us safer than the belief that someone is packing a pistol under his jacket or in her purse?

I still have my doubts.

 

State news

Who works for whom?

I need help with this one.

State Rep. Molly White, a Republican from Belton, Texas, has refused to meet with constituents who want to complain to her about some legislation she’s proposing.

Why? She says it’s a waste of her time and she won’t talk to — that’s correct — her constituents.

The issue is gay rights. Rep. White calls herself a Christian who follows God’s word. The legislation she’s backing would allow businesses to deny service to Texans on religious grounds. She also wants to exempt the state’s ban on same-sex marriage from court rulings.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/texas-lawmaker-refuses-to-meet-with-constituents-who-dont-share-her-views-staff-says-it-is-a-waste-of-time/

“Marriage is a Holy union of one man and one woman created and ordained by God. There is no other definition. As a Christian, I am guided by God’s Word,” White explained in a statement.

Some folks in her Texas House district disagree with that and want to talk to her about it.

White will have none of it.

Hmmm.

OK, I now will try to explain briefly why this is wrong.

In a representative democracy such as ours, the people who hold public office work at the pleasure of the people they represent. They don’t work only for those who vote for them, they answer to all the people in a governing subdivision, in this case a Texas House of Representatives district. Therefore, if someone wants to gripe at a lawmaker, they are entitled to do so.

And the lawmaker, it seems to me, is obligated to give them a fair hearing. They can argue face to face. They call each other names if they wish. The lawmaker, though, doesn’t have the liberty of stiff-arming a constituency group merely because they disagree with his or her point of view.

As the Rawstory reported: “Janet Adamski, a political science professor at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, noted that lawmakers are not required to meet with their constituents, but refusing to talk to a constituent because of their views runs contrary to the purpose of being of representative.”

Put another way: Rep. White works for them, not the other way around.

 

local news, State news

Texting ban bill needs to become law

2 Comments

Say it ain’t so, Texas Senate.

Please tell me you are going to follow the Texas House’s lead and send a bill banning texting while driving to the desk of Gov. Greg Abbott. And please, governor, tell me you’re going to sign this bill into law.

Why am I asking these things?

I ran into a Texas House member Sunday and he told me he thinks there’s a chance the Senate won’t approve a bill that the House approved by overwhelming numbers about three weeks ago.

The state needs to enact a law that all but five other states already have enacted.

It would write into state law a prohibition against sending text messages while operating a motor vehicle. Is there a more stupid act than that?

Granted, motorists shouldn’t have to be told not to engage in such stupidity, but they do.

That’s where the state ought to come in, not to babysit the nimrods who cannot stop texting while driving — but to protect the rest of us traveling on our public streets and highways who are put in imminent danger by the dipsticks who cannot put their texting devices down.

Several cities across the state have enacted ordinances against this kind of (mis)behavior; Amarillo is one of them. Out-of-state motorists driving through Texas don’t know which cities have bans and which do not. A statewide ban that is promoted aggressively across the nation would make it clear that such idiocy won’t be tolerated in Texas.

The 2011 Legislature sent a texting ban bill to Gov. Rick Perry’s desk. But the governor vetoed it, issuing one of the most ridiculous veto messages imaginable, saying the bill was too intrusive, that it micromanaged Texans’ behavior on the road.

The Texas House has done its job. Now it’s the Texas Senate’s turn.

Well?