Tag Archives: Texas Legislature

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.

Uncategorized

Audie Murphy finally honored by state

I’ll admit to being a little slow on the uptake, but I have to give a huge salute to the Texas Legislature for doing something it should have done, oh, about 15 years ago.

It honored the late Audie Murphy — the most decorated soldier in Texas history — with the Texas Legislature Medal of Honor. Gov. Rick Perry made the award official on Aug. 19 when he signed House Concurrent Resolution 3, which the Legislature approved during its second special session this summer.

Finally!

The Legislature Medal of Honor was begun with the 1997 Legislature. Murphy should have been the first man so honored. But he wasn’t, for reasons no one has explained.

Murphy, who died in a 1971 plane crash, served in the Army during World War II. He received the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism in connection with his duty in France, when he killed an estimated 200 German soldiers in a single fire fight. His exploits became the subject of legend and lore. Murphy went on to become a film actor and portrayed himself in the film “To Hell and Back,” which told the story of his battlefield heroism.

The failure to honor Murphy, a native of Hunt County, was something of a comedy of errors over the years. The Legislature formerly only honored a single individual per session. It expanded the ranks to two per session in 2011. It’s as if his name kept slipping through the cracks as lawmakers pondered who they would honor.

This man has been honored by foreign governments in Europe, where he fought to liberate a continent from tyranny. When you look up the term “hero” in the dictionary, there ought to be a picture of Audie Murphy included in the definition provided.

The Texas Legislature has corrected a serious oversight by honoring Audie Murphy with this long-overdue recognition.

Uncategorized

Democrats waiting on Wendy

The Texas Democratic Party seems to be in a state of suspended animation.

Nothing is happening in preparation for the 2014 elections until a certain Democratic state senator announces whether she’s running for Texas governor next year.

Well, Ms. Wendy Davis? What’s it gonna be?

That’s the crux of a Texas Tribune report that notes how other Texas Democrats — what’s left of them — are too “chicken” to declare their intentions until state Sen. Davis decides her next course of action.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/27/texas-democrats-wait-davis-/

Davis, D-Fort Worth, has become the state’s newest Democratic superstar. I’m thinking she could be the next Ann Richards, the colorful and articulate former state treasurer who ran for governor in 1990, defeating Midland oil mogul Claytie Williams in one of the more rip-roarin’ campaigns in recent years.

Davis’s superstar credentials came as she led a filibuster in June that stopped temporarily a strict bill banning abortions in Texas after the 20th week of pregnancy. Davis talked for more than 13 hours before the clock ran out on the Texas Legislature, whose Republican majority wanted the bill to pass.

They brought it back in the second special session and it sailed through to Gov. Rick Perry desk.

Davis, however, now is acting very much as though she wants to run for governor. She’d be a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination. A fall campaign, though, remains highly problematic in this heavily Republican state. Attorney General Greg Abbott is the GOP favorite; he faces former GOP chairman Tom Pauken in the upcoming Republican primary. There can be zero doubt that either Abbott or Pauken would be difficult for any Democrat to beat in the fall.

Decision day is coming soon for Wendy Davis. Whatever she decides about a governor’s race is sure to spring open the gates for other Democrats to decide what they’ll do. The question for the Texas Democratic Party well might be whether they’ll be able to field a slate of candidates up and down the ballot.

Someone such as Sen. Davis at the top of the ballot could go a long way toward luring other strong Democrats into the arena.

Let’s all stay tuned.

Uncategorized

Concealed carry’s perverted logic making sense now

I’m beginning to grasp the perverted logic behind Texas’s concealed-carry handgun law.

This morning, just before 11, knowledge of the law prevented me — I’m guessing — from making a potentially grievous mistake.

My wife and I were traveling west on 45th Avenue after running our weekly breakfast date and an appointment with our chiropractor. I was feeling all “adjusted” and ready for the day when we approached the intersection of 45th and Teckla.

Then it happened. Some moron — with a passenger riding shotgun in a large pickup — burst through the red light signal and came into the intersection right in front of us. I swerved suddenly into the right-hand lane of traffic, realizing after I’d done so that there was no one in that lane. Good thing, too.

I was so angry, I blurted out — inside the closed cab of our pickup — an exclamation followed by a very bad word. Kathy didn’t flinch. She didn’t say it, but I know she agreed with me.

I entertained briefly the idea of pulling up beside this guy and shouting some more bad words at him. Kathy talked me out of it.

She didn’t need to say a thing. The thought began running immediately through my mind that this brain-dead fruitcake could be packing a pistol in his truck. Thus, we have a lesson in the perverted logic of the concealed carry law, which the Texas Legislature enacted in 1995 — over my strenuous objections, I should add.

I was just a lonely voice in the wilderness, I guess. I did fear the thought of traffic-intersections shootouts when the Legislature was considering the law. Turns out my fears were overblown.

In fact, as today’s incident proves, it seems the opposite may be a consequence of the law.

Let there be no misunderstanding. I’m still not crazy about the law. However, I’ve come to accept the argument that the law — and the knowledge that we don’t know who’s carrying weapons — does foster better manners and some restraint among drivers when they’re nearly killed by moronic motorists.

Uncategorized

Smithee for Texas House speaker?

Et tu, John Smithee?

Paul Burka, the blogger/columnist for Texas Monthly, thinks state Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo, might be thinking about challenging Speaker Joe Straus as the Man of the House.

That would be a most interesting turn of events.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/brewing-speakers-race

It’s not that Smithee isn’t worthy of consideration. He’s been in the House since 1985 and is by far the senior member of the Texas Panhandle legislative delegation; I think he’s got something like 18 years on the second-ranking Panhandle legislator, Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, who was elected in 2003.

Burka thinks Smithee could be among a group of legislators looking to oust Straus, who I guess they believe has become too, um, “mainstream” for their liking. Smithee is set to emcee a fundraiser for an East Texas representative, Republican Kent Schaefer of Tyler.

I’m trying to figure out Smithee’s end game, if he has one, regarding the speakership.

I remember asking Smithee about the speaker’s office back when former Speaker Tom Craddick was being ousted from that high post. Smithee considered a run for it, but backed out. He said he disliked the political nature of the office. He preferred to be more of a legislative workhouse, staying in the background. He’s been known to walk across the aisle to work with Democrats, which I’ve become accustomed to believing is a big strike against any Republican serving in the state House of Reps.

I got the strong sense from Smithee — who I’ve known and admired since arriving in the Panhandle back in early 1995 — that he didn’t like the power brokering the speaker occasionally has to do. I’ve long thought of Smithee as a straight shooter who never was afraid to answer a direct question with a direct answer.

Smithee for speaker? Seems like a stretch to me. Then again, I haven’t been close to Smithee for some time. Maybe he’s been infected by the right-wing virus that’s been going around.