Tag Archives: Texas Legislature

Uncategorized

Constables … who needs 'em?

1 Comment

One of my better friends in town is an Amarillo police captain who used to be a Randall County constable.

He did one job full time. The police department post occupied his professional life. The constable gig was something else again. Jeff Lester ran for constable, didn’t lift a finger on that job while seeking to have it abolished. He then lost his constable job in 2012 after his precinct was gerrymandered in a way that forced him to run for re-election against a couple of guys who wanted to make the job more, um, relevant.

Lester was on to something with his effort to get rid of what I’ve long thought was a superfluous, unnecessary and wasteful elected post.

My hope remains that the Texas Legislature somehow in the near future will find the courage to allow counties such as many of them in this part of the state to get rid of the office.

Constables are a vestige of some old-fashioned custom years ago that allowed these individuals to act as bailiffs in justice of the peace courts. They also are empowered to perform other law enforcement functions. They can write tickets for traffic violations. They also serve warrants and court papers to those involved in litigation.

Voters must elect these people, which in Texas is no big shakes, given that we elect everyone to every office under the sun.

But I’ve never quite understood why in a state — that in recent years has taken some pride in proclaiming to be the model of “government efficiency” — that we continue to have this elected law enforcement office at all. Nor have I understood why the duties I mentioned earlier cannot be done by other law enforcement agencies, such as, oh, municipal police departments and sheriff’s departments.

It’s maddening in the extreme.

I get that some larger urban counties use constables with some effectiveness. Let them keep doing so.

Here? It’s a different animal, as I’ve noticed over the years.

We’ve elected some constables who’ve suited up, strapped on the pistol and patrolled the streets of their constable precincts. We’ve had others who haven’t done a damn thing, yet still get paid for holding an office. Yet, the counties are virtually powerless to do anything about them.

Once in a while, you hear about constables being elected who aren’t even certified by Texas law enforcement regulators. Back in Jefferson County, we had a guy elected constable who wasn’t yet licensed to perform the duties to which he was elected; the state gave him the time he needed to get certified; he didn’t, and then the state essentially kicked him out of office.

Texas does not need constables. When will our Legislature find the guts it needs to get rid of the office?

Uncategorized

Paper or plastic … bags, that is?

Texas might find itself in the middle of yet another legal snit.

This time it could be over whether cities have the authority to ban plastic grocery bags. My hope, given my environmentally friendly attitude about such things, is that cities can do this on their own if they see fit.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/03/11/push-tra-bag-ban-goes-attorney-general/

State Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Canton, has asked the Texas attorney general’s office to rule on it. He believes cities’ efforts to ban plastic grocery bags don’t comply with state health and safety laws.

I’ll ask the question here that I’ve asked regarding cities’ authority to install red-light cameras at intersections: Doesn’t local control mean that cities and other local jurisdictions have the right to do what’s best for their communities?

Today in the Texas Panhandle offers a prime example of why such a ban makes sense. The wind is howling at this moment, gusting at 60 mph and greater. I shudder to think what I’m going to see in the morning. I’m betting I’m going to see plastic grocery bags strewn across large stretches of open country, piled up against fences, snagged in trees, wrapped around utility poles or piled up in my front yard.

Would paper bags be immune from that kind of wind-driven mess? Of course not. The paper, though, is quite biodegradable and a better fit for the landfills.

Cities all across the country are enacting bans on plastic bags. That’s their call and individual states empower the cities to act independently. In Texas, though, the Legislature retains control over municipal affairs, despite contentions from politicians — starting with Gov. Rick Perry — who espouse the value of “local control.”

Grocer associations hate the idea of the ban. Their lobby is strong in Austin. In my view, it is too strong.

I’d prefer to see a more environmentally friendly policy enacted in cities, such as Amarillo, that does away with the plastic bags. If only the state would allow it.

Uncategorized

Carry guns in the open? I don’t think so

State Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, is taking heat from her liberal supporters for advocating a law that allows people to carry guns openly.

The Democratic candidate for governor is making a mistake with that one.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/02/06/davis-takes-friendly-fire-gun-issue/

Texas’s concealed handgun carry law has worked better than I ever thought it would. However, there ought to be some restrictions on where and how people can pack heat. The concealed carry law works. Why broaden it?

I can remember when the concealed carry law debate began in 1995. Our newspaper opposed it. Why? We believed street-corner shootouts could occur in cases of road rage gone amok. We were wrong.

However, I remember vividly my boss at the time, publisher Garet von Netzer, questioning then-state Sen. Teel Bivins, R-Amarillo, about the law. Bivins supported the legislation allowing concealed handgun carry. Von Netzer asked Bivins point-blank — no pun intended — “If it’s such a good idea, why don’t you just allow folks to strap six-shooters on their hips? For that matter, why not allow them in the Capitol Building?”

The question caught Bivins flat-footed, if memory serves.

It was a good thing to ask then and it’s good to ask the likes of Wendy Davis now.

Concealed-carry laws are sufficient. Why change what’s working?

Uncategorized

Smithee for House speaker? Don’t think so

Paul Burka, the estimable Texas Monthly editor and blogger, is one of the smarter Texas political analysts around.

I like his analyses — most of the time. I have to disagree with his view that Republican state Rep. John Smithee of Amarillo may be angling for a shot at becoming the next speaker of the Texas House of Representatives.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/does-john-smithee-want-be-speaker

He’s posted a couple of blog items wondering out loud about Smithee’s aspirations in the wake of his emceeing an event in Tyler involving some tea part Republicans.

Burka notes that Smithee voted against the House budget this past session. It’s a big deal, Burka said, because Smithee chairs the House Insurance Committee, thanks to Speaker Joe Straus’s appointment powers.

Burka asserts further that Smithee appears to have a following among members of the tea party wing of the Republican Party, who don’t like Straus’s coziness with House Democrats.

Here’s my take: John Smithee is a comfortable as a back-bench member of the House, where he has served quietly since 1985.

He’s been mentioned in recent times as a possible speaker candidate. I have asked him directly about the earlier reports of his alleged interest in becoming the Man of the House. I’ve always thought Smithee to be a pretty direct guy; he answers direct questions with direct answers. His response to the query was that he didn’t like the “political” nature of the speakership. And political it is. It involves a lot of deal-making, cajoling, hand-holding, bullying … all of it and more.

Smithee just doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy who’s comfortable assuming all those responsibilities.

Would he make a good speaker? He has a lot of friends in both legislative chambers — in both parties.

My sense is that he values those relationships more than he values being speaker.

Uncategorized

Shocking! Sen. Wendy Davis’s income jumps

So now it is revealed that state Sen. Wendy Davis’s law practice is proving to be lucrative for the legislator.

That’s a surprise?

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/12/04/wendy-davis-sees-legal-income-rise/

Davis, who’s running for Texas governor and figures to be a shoo-in for the Democratic Party’s nomination, released her past three years’ tax returns. They reveal that her private law practice income has doubled. It’s a good thing for her, too, given that she earns $7,200 a year as a state senator, plus the per diem expense stipend she gets when the Legislature is in session.

It’s long been something of an open secret that many lawmakers parlay their public service exposure into money-making strategies for their day jobs. Davis’s law practice wasn’t doing badly for her in 2010, the first year of the returns she released. Her income went from $130,000 annually that year to $284,000 in 2012. Not bad, right?

Well, that’s the way it goes for public figures. Every aspect of their so-called “private life” becomes subject to public scrutiny.

Attorney General Greg Abbott, who’s running for the Republican nomination for governor, had released his tax returns earlier.

Davis’s income story, of course, doesn’t quite end with the amount of money she earned. The law firm she founded has had dealings with some high-dollar public-sector clients, which is where some folks have suggested has produced potential conflicts of interest. She’ll need to reveal those relationships — in detail.

That, too, is the price of being in the public eye.

Uncategorized

Abbott takes aim at Texas ethics laws

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is trying to remove the term “Texas government ethics” from the list of ridiculous oxymorons.

Good for him.

The Texas Tribune reports that the leading Republican candidate for governor — and the unquestioned favorite to win the job in next year’s election — is proposing a sweeping set of ethics rules that just might make Texas legislators a bit nervous.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/11/14/abbott-proposes-far-reaching-ethics-reform/

It is about time someone stepped up.

Abbott’s proposal puts teeth in state ethics laws that are supposed to restrict legislators’ ability to pass laws affecting their private businesses. He would seek to give private citizens the right to sue lawmakers if they believe they have crossed ethical boundaries. “They are supposed to be working for you, not their own bank accounts,” Abbott said in a speech outlining his proposals, according to the Tribune.

The Tribune also reports that Abbott’s proposal takes dead aim at presumptive Democratic nominee state Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth, whose own legal interests have been questioned as their propriety. Davis’s legal activities have involved principals connected with legislation.

Liberals have applauded Abbott’s proposal as far-reaching and virtually unprecedented. As the Tribune reported: “We haven’t seen a proposal like this in decades, if ever,” said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a liberal watchdog group that has for years advocated for stricter ethics laws. “This takes giant steps toward eliminating conflicts of interest and improving the sometimes unethical behavior of members of state government.”

Does it go far enough? Probably not. I would like to see laws that seriously restrict legislators’ ability to go from making laws to becoming advocates for businesses affected by laws. I refer to their post-legislative lobbying efforts. Former Texas Democratic House Speaker Pete Laney of Hale Center went from legislator to lobbyist, as did former state Republican Rep. David Swinford of Dumas. Were they able to parlay their relationships into material benefit for their clients? Certainly. That’s not right, either.

It’ll be a challenge for whomever is elected governor next year to try to push any meaningful ethics reform through the Legislature, given lawmakers’ long-held resistance to approving such measures.

Abbott, though, has initiated a long-overdue discussion that should remain front and center of the upcoming campaign for governor.

Uncategorized

Texas abortion law takes strange turn

Well, how about this: A federal judge nominated by a recent Republican president has overturned part of Texas’s controversial anti-abortion law.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, picked for the federal bench in Austin by President George W. Bush in 2003, has tossed a serious wrench into the state’s effort to make abortion an illegal act in Texas.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/10/29/federal-court-rules-abortion-restriction-unconstit/

Yeakel has ruled that the portion of the law that requires abortion providers to be within 30 miles of hospital is unconstitutional. Here is how Texas Tribune reported the judge’s ruling: “Abortion providers would have been required to obtain hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the abortion facility and follow federal standards for the administration of abortion-inducing drugs. Yeakel ruled that the hospital privileges requirement was unconstitutional because it created an undue burden on women without serving a rational purpose. He also said drug-induced abortions could be performed following a common evidence-based regimen if the physician believed it was safer for the patient.”

The state has asked for a stay of the judge’s ruling. No word as I write this about whether the stay has been granted.

Here’s a case of a judge unencumbered by politics, ruling without threat of reprisal.

I do like the federal standard for judicial appointments. A lot of federal judges over many decades have disappointed their political sponsors by issuing rulings that run counter to the political leanings of the person who appoints them. Critics of these judges usually label them a “activist” or “out of the mainstream” or some other pejorative term.

My own view is that judges should be free to rule on the law as they interpret it without fearing for their political survival. State judges — such as those we elect in Texas — often are punished at the ballot box for delivering decisions that upset voters, regardless of the legal correctness of that decision.

Judge Yeakel has opened a big-time debate now in Texas over whether the anti-abortion law — which produced a legislative debate that propelled Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis onto the national stage with her wild filibuster — can pass constitutional muster.

Oh, the complexity of a democratic form of government.

Uncategorized

Prop 6 looks like a water winner for state

Texas’ Legislature was kind to voters this election year by giving us “only” nine amendments to the Texas Constitution to consider.

One of them is of huge importance to the Panhandle. It’s Proposition 6, the “water amendment.”

I plan to vote for it.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/10/22/guest-column-vote-yes-prop-6-we-need-water/

Gov. Rick Perry’s column attached here tells us that the amendment would allow the state to tap into its Rainy Day Fund — which is a rather ironic twist, if you think about it — to develop water resources for the state.

Perry writes: “Our booming economy, rapidly growing population and the drought that has plagued most of the state for years are combining to stress our ability to meet our water demands. If we do nothing to address these needs, we place at risk the health and well-being of future generations.”

The Rainy Day Fund, Perry and other supporters note, won’t be imperiled. There will remain plenty of money left in the fund to use for other “emergencies.” By my way of thinking, I believe the state’s water shortage constitutes an emergency, particularly in regions of the state that have so little of it. That means the Panhandle.

Perry adds, “Because of our economic strength, the Rainy Day Fund has reached historic highs. Even with a one-time transfer of funds to address our water needs, we’ll still have an estimated $8.3 billion in reserve.”

Debra Medina, the tea party darling who ran for governor in 2010, opposes it. Her essay is attached here:

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/10/22/guest-column-vote-no-prop-6/

Of the two, Perry’s makes more sense. Proposition 6 is a reasonable approach to spending money the state has on hand to fend off actual emergencies.

A world without water? That constitutes a dire circumstance.

Uncategorized

Davis talking to Texans … about education

Wendy Davis’s campaign for Texas governor is just now getting started.

I’ll be waiting with bated breath to hear what she thinks about a lot of issues not related to abortion — the issue that catapulted her to national fame.

The Fort Worth Democratic state senator declared her gubernatorial candidacy this past week, spilling the beans on one of the worst-kept secrets in recent state political history. Seems as if everyone in Texas knew she would run before she announced it.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/10/05/wendy-davis-tiptoes-around-government-shutdown/

I’ll go out on a limb here and say she’ll be the Democratic nominee next spring when they count all the primary ballots. Attorney General Greg Abbott appears headed for the Republican nomination, unless underdog GOP firebrand Tom Pauken pulls a rabbit out of his hat.

Davis is beginning to sound like the “education candidate” for governor. She pledges to restore some of the money cut from public education under Gov. Rick Perry’s watch. Seems as though Perry sought budget cuts to help balance the budget and the Legislature obliged by cutting public education. That was a curious decision, given the need for the state to boost public education in an increasingly competitive environment with other states.

Wendy Davis is talking now about restoring those cuts.

Remember the filibuster this past summer she launched against an anti-abortion bill? Well, she said this week she also filibustered a proposal to cut public education in 2011. That one didn’t get nearly the attention the 2013 filibuster did.

I am betting Davis will choose to highlight the earlier gabfest in support of education as she travels the state in search of votes.

Uncategorized

Abortion becomes ultimate wedge issue

An editorial in the Monday Amarillo Globe-News poses an interesting — but patently unfair — question about a Texas state senator and probable candidate for Texas governor.

“(W)hat does state Sen. Wendy Davis bring to the table other than support for abortion?”

That was the question. Davis, D-Fort Worth, is likely to announce this week that she’ll seek the Democratic nomination for governor in 2014. She’s a star in a Texas Democratic Party that has been bereft of shining lights for the past two decades.

I’ll talk later about Davis’s candidacy but I will discuss abortion as a campaign issue.

Davis filibustered a Republican-sponsored bill this past summer that would have placed serious restrictions on women’s ability to seek an abortion. She won a temporary victory and gained considerable political mileage from that fleeting triumph. The Legislature approved the bill in a subsequent special session and Gov. Rick Perry signed it into law.

Does she “support” abortion? One would have to assume that Davis’s filibuster was meant to signal a support for the procedure on demand, for whatever reason. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard Wendy Davis declare her “support” for abortion. What she opposes, I’m able to surmise, are laws that restrict women from making that choice for themselves.

Indeed, it is unfair to ascribe “support for abortion” to Sen. Davis, if one is to look at her own history. She became pregnant while she was unmarried. She chose to give birth to her child. She reared that child to adulthood and along the way earned a good education and has carved out a nice career in public service.

Yet the abortion debate too often turns on these wrong-headed assumptions anti-abortion rights folks make about those who favor the rights of women to end a pregnancy. They often suggest that if you believe a women should have the right to make that choice then you are by definition “pro-abortion.”

The discussion should be far more nuanced than that. Sadly, it’s not. Abortion has become arguably the most divisive wedge issue in American politics.