Tag Archives: Texas Legislature

Uncategorized

State missing road-building opportunity

Perhaps you’ve noticed over a period of time that I like referring to Paul Burka’s blog on Texas Monthly’s website. It provides grist for my own commentary.

His latest item refers to Texas road construction and maintenance.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/road-nowhere

I believe Burka, who’s a smart guy and well-versed in all things relating to Texas government, has glossed over an essential point in extolling the need for the state to pump more money into its highway fund.

It is this: Texas’s economy is built significantly on fossil fuel exploration and development. Therefore, it is in the state’s economic interest — at this time and likely for the foreseeable future — to enable motorists to travel safely on its roads, highways and bridges. Why? Because the vast majority of motor vehicles traveling through the state are powered by gasoline, which comes from those fossil fuels pulled from the ground in Texas.

Burka notes that the state hasn’t raised its gas tax since 1991. He adds correctly that given the mood of the state political leadership, it seems unlikely the Legislature would increase the tax. It’s a matter of politics interfering with good policy.

Do I want to pay more for gasoline when the need arises? No. However, if the revenue were to bolster the state highway fund and create a safer driving environment for my family and me, then I’m all for it.

It’s not that the state is doing nothing. As Burka writes: “The Legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment, to be voted on by the public in November, to provide $1.3 billion for highway projects. Even so, the dollars provided by the amendment will be a drop in the bucket for roadbuilding.”

Texans comprise a mobile society. Those of us who live out here in the vast expanse of West Texas understand that you have to drive some distance to get anywhere.

Road construction and maintenance ought to be a no-brainer for a state as vast as ours — and a state that still relies heavily on fossil fuels to power its economy.

Uncategorized

Ideology paints non-ideological campaigns

Glenn Hegar is the Republican nominee for Texas comptroller of public accounts.

He wants to be the state’s bean-counter in chief. Hegar also wants voters to know that he’s a strong conservative. Does he necessarily tout his financial credentials? Not exactly. He talked during the primary campaign about his pro-life position and his religious devotion.

Interesting, yes?

Ryan Sitton is the GOP nominee for railroad commissioner. He said the same thing about himself as Hegar. He mailed out campaign literature touting his strong conservative credentials, including his strong support of gun owners rights.

Also interesting.

What’s strikes me, though, about these two examples is that the principals are seeking offices that have nothing to do with abortion, or God, or guns ownership. Hegar wants to be the comptroller, whose main job as defined by the Texas Constitution, is to provide legislators and the governor with an accurate accounting of the state’s fiscal condition. The job Sitton seeks is focused even more narrowly. Railroad commissioners regulate the oil and natural gas industry. That’s it. Heck they don’t even set policy for railroads or rail cars, which used to be part of their job.

We’re hearing a lot of ideological talk among candidates, almost exclusively on the Republican side, who are running for nuts-and-bolts offices.

I understand why legislative or congressional candidates would want to establish their ideological credentials with voters. They seek to write laws. The other folks simply carry out the laws enacted by lawmakers and signed by either the governor or the president of the United States.

I am hoping that as the fall campaign commences we hear more from the candidates about how they intend to manage the offices they seek and less from them about irrelevant ideology.

Uncategorized

75 mph? Hey, no big deal

1 Comment

My good friend Paige Carruth is going to flip when he gets wind of what I’m about to write next.

I’ve gotten used to driving 75 mph on our highways.

There. It’s off my chest. I feel cleansed already.

Why the change of heart?

Flash back to the mid-1990s. I was writing editorials for the Amarillo Globe-News. Congress had just been taken over by Republicans in that historic Contract With America election. The federal government had enacted since the 1970s a federally mandated 55 mph speed limit on interstate highways. We took the position then that lifting the limit was dangerous on a couple of levels.

The feds had enacted the speed limit to reduce fuel consumption; the Arab oil embargoes of 1973 and 1979 frightened us, remember? Reducing the speed in fact reduced our consumption of fossil fuels. What’s more, it reduced the number of traffic fatalities, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Congress didn’t listen to us. The 1995 Congress removed the federal mandate and gave states the authority to jack up the speed limits. Texas jumped all over it and the 1995 Legislature bumped the speeds up to 70 mph on interstate highways. I was mortified. I said so at the time publicly, in my column; the newspaper editorial policy suggested it was a mistake as well.

Paige — a retired West Texas State University administrator — has never let me forget that I am a slow-poke by nature.

Well, that was true then. It’s not so true now.

I’ve gotten used to the 75 mph speed limit. The state has since boosted its speed to 75 on many highways — interstate freeways and state-run highways.

Allow me this tiny boast: My wife and I today returned from a weekend in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, where we visited our granddaughter — and her parents. We left their home in Allen this afternoon at 1:40; we pulled into our driveway in Amarillo at 7:37 p.m. That’s less than six hours in what usually takes us a lot longer.

The 75 mph speed limit helped us set what we believe is a personal land-speed record.

It helps that one of our two vehicles is a Toyota Prius hybrid that gets stupendously good fuel mileage, which enables us to justify our willingness to press the pedal to the metal. It also helps that the little car — to borrow a phrase used by the late great Hall of Fame baseball pitcher-turned announcer Dizzy Dean — can really “pick ’em up and lay ’em down.”

I feel better already having acknowledged that driving a little faster doesn’t give me the nervous jerks the way it once did.

Let’s not talk about driving 80 mph, which is allowed on some sections of Interstate 10 downstate. And Texas 130, where they allow you to goose it to 85? I’ll leave that stretch of roadway to the fools.

Uncategorized

Text ban is no intrusion

If the 2015 Texas Legislature goes through with reports that it will consider a statewide ban on texting, we’re bound to hear from the righteous among us about the state’s intrusion into motorists’ personal liberties.

Let’s ponder that one for a moment.

* The state requires everyone in a motor vehicle to wear safety belts. That means passengers in the front seat and the rear seat. You have to buckle up, or else.

* Texas also requires children of a certain age or younger to be strapped into an approved motor vehicle safety restraint carrier. That, of course, is the responsibility of the parent or the adult who’s driving the motor vehicle to ensure that the child is strapped in properly. Again, do it or else.

* The state has banned the carrying open containers of alcoholic beverages in your motor vehicle. No more tossing those empty beer cans into the back of your truck, Bubba. You got that?

Does anyone gripe about intrusion regarding those particular laws? If so, they do it under their breath.

But we’ll hear from those who believe — wrongly, in my view — that these texting bans or prohibitions on the use of handheld communications devices will take away one more right of motorists to communicate with loved ones.

Gov. Rick Perry vetoed a texting ban bill passed by the 2011 Legislature, saying that it was too, um, intrusive. The good news is that he’ll be out of office when the next Legislature convenes. I hope the new governor has better sense than the soon-to-be former one.

Cities have enacted the bans. Amarillo is one of them. Enforcing it has been problematic, to say the least, given what many of us have noticed already — which is that motorists can still be seen texting and driving at the same time.

Still, the legislation is worth considering and enacting.

Do it, legislators!

Uncategorized

Gerrymandering not always a bad thing

1 Comment

Whether to gerrymander a congressional district, that is the question.

I’ve been stewing about this for years, believe it or not. It’s not that I don’t have many important things to ponder, but this one has been stuck in my craw ever since I landed in Amarillo back in January 1995.

The term “gerrymander” is named after Elbridge Gerry, who served as vice president during the James Madison administration. It’s come to identify the practice of drawn governmental boundaries in such a way as to protect certain political parties. It’s been vilified as a form of political protectionism.

Is it always a bad thing? I submit that it isn’t always a negative.

Consider what happened to Amarillo back in the early 1990s.

The 1991 Texas Legislature gerrymandered the 13th and 19th congressional districts in a way that split Amarillo in two. Potter County was included in the 13th district; Randall County was drawn into the 19th. The 13th was represented at that time by Democrat Bill Sarpalius; the 19th by Republican Larry Combest. The 1991 Legislature — which was dominated by Democrats — intended to protect Democratic members of Congress. Legislators believed that by carving out the Potter County portion of Amarillo into that district — which contained a good number of Democratic voters — that Sarpalius would be protected.

I came to work as editorial page editor of the Amarillo Globe-News, which was in the middle of a furious editorial campaign to put Amarillo back into a single congressional district.

What happened between 1991 and the time of my arrival in 1995? Well, Sarpalius was re-elected to the House in 1992, but in 1994, he was upset by upstart Republican Mac Thornberry, who at the time was serving as Larry Combest’s congressional chief of staff. Sarpalius wasn’t the only Democratic incumbent to lose that year, as that was the election featuring the GOP’s Contract With America.

Interesting, eh? Thornberry took office in 1995, which then meant that Amarillo was represented by two Republican members of Congress. Back when one was a Democrat and one was a Republican, you could count on Combest and Sarpalius voting opposite each other. Their votes and their constituencies canceled each other out. With Thornberry and Combest serving together in Congress, well, you had a two-for-one deal. Both men sang from the same sheet. You got two votes for Amarillo, even though they represented separate congressional districts.

Still, the newspaper kept beating the drum for a reuniting of Amarillo into a single congressional district. Our wish would be granted after the 2000 census and the 2001 Legislature returned all of Amarillo to the 13th district.

I look back, though, a bit wistfully on the time when Amarillo had two members of Congress looking after its interests. Combest was by the far the senior member of the two. He was a big hitter on the House Agriculture Committee and served on the Select Committee on Intelligence. He was a frequent visitor to Amarillo, where he maintained a district office.

I never challenged my publisher’s desire to throw over one of our two congressmen at the time. I wish now I had raised the issue with him.

My thought now is that gerrymandering, while it generally is meant as a tool to do harm, actually can produce an unintended positive consequence for a community — as it did in Amarillo.

Uncategorized

Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion

2 Comments

I’ve just finished reading a blistering series of social media responses to state Sen. Wendy Davis’s visit to the Texas Panhandle.

The Fort Worth Democrat — her party’s nominee to be the next governor of Texas — became an instant political celebrity at the end of the 2013 Legislature when she filibustered a bill that would restrict abortions in Texas. The bill became law after a subsequent special legislative session, but Davis made her mark by filibustering the bill to death in an earlier session.

She’s become the No. 1 target of “social conservatives” who will not forgive her — not ever — for taking the position she took. She opposed the law making abortion illegal after the 20th week of pregnancy. Indeed, she opposes government telling a woman that she must complete a pregnancy. She believes that choice belongs to the woman, her physician, her partner and God.

The tirades I’ve read about Davis seem to harp on a single point, which is that Davis condones abortion, that she’s a “baby killer.”

I know this is not going to go over well with some of the more conservative readers of this blog, but I feel the need to make this point.

A pro-choice policy on abortion does not equal being pro-abortion.

A pregnant woman always has the choice on whether to give birth. If she is unable to rear a child, the law enables her to terminate the pregnancy. She also has the choice of delivering that child and allowing someone else to adopt the child. The woman also has the choice of delivering the child and rearing the child herself, or with her husband or partner, or with her parents or some other family member or close friend.

These are choices the woman makes. To suggest that a pro-choice policy on abortion equates to being pro-abortion takes demagoguery to a new level.

My hope is that the campaign for Texas governor will avoid that kind of rhetoric in the months to come. My fear, based on what I’ve seen just today, is that it won’t.

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.