As the 82nd Legislature hurtled this weekend toward a crash landing, freshman Republican Representative Lanham Lyne of Wichita Falls stepped up to the front microphone of the Texas House to deliver his first major legislative speech. Lyne was arguing on behalf of the budget, which cuts billions, yet he seemed ambivalent, and in his impassioned soliloquy he managed to sum up the challenges of this session. He argued that his voters didn’t understand what they were doing when they demanded state budget cuts, but since they elected him he was obliged to give them what they want.

This was, above all else, a budget session, and the legislators—both Democrats or Republicans—had bent themselves to the task without enthusiasm. They all knew that even though it would satisfy some voters in the short run, a budget containing massive cuts to state services was likely to make more constituents unhappy in the long run. The rumor was that the school finance plan that passed the House on Sunday by 84-63 already was unraveling with Republican members concerned about casting a vote that would hurt their district twice. Dewhurst gloomily predicted that a special session had the potential of lasting the full thirty days.

So it was with fascination Saturday evening that I watched Lyne plead for passage of the available revenue budget with a speech that sounded like he was against it. He frankly recounted his own ignorance as a candidate—and that of his voters too. He held aloft a copy of the Texas Fact Book, a statistically compendium of how far behind the rest of the nation Texas is in funding services and education

“Everywhere I went, the people said: Cut the budget, cut the budget, cut the budget. I’m not sure they knew Texas was not Washington, D.C., that we don’t spend money like Washington, D.C.,” said Lyne. “I did what the people sent me here to do from my district. But I guarantee you there are a lot of angry, unhappy people in my district because they didn’t want us to cut theirs, and they didn’t want us to raise taxes either. This is what the people who voted for the majority of the people here want to see, but I promise you they don’t know what gets spent in our Texas Legislature.” (more…)

Tagged: budget, david dewhurst, rick perry

Clements will always hold an honored place in the Republican Pantheon as the first GOP governor of Texas since Reconstruction. He was elected in 1978 thanks to a split in the Democratic party. Attorney General John Hill had defeated incumbent governor Dolph Briscoe in the Democratic primary and was favored to beat Clements. But conservative Democrats–most of whom had supported Briscoe in the primary–sided with Clements against Hill.

Clements was a self-made megamillionaire, the founder of an offshore oilfield services firm called SEDCO. He benefited greatly from Jimmy Carter’s unpopularity in Texas and vowed to hang Carter around Hill’s neck “like a rubber chicken”–and made good his vow. When his firm was responsible for the biggest oil spill in history to that time, Clements harrumphed that it was “much ado about nothing.” Such comments were typical of Clements; he was gruff and outspoken, and, as he put it, “Texan to his toenails.” Most of his comments complemented his irascible personality–such as when he referred to a Mexican scholar who disagreed with U.S. immigration policy as “just another Mexican with an opinion”–but one offhand comment turned into a self-inflicted fatal wound, when he said, during his 1982 race for reelection, that “no housewife was qualified to sit on the Public Utility Commission.” That cost him the race.

Clements had to deal with legislatures that were overwhelmingly Democratic, and consequently he did not have a lot of policy initiatives. His strength was his appointments to state boards and commissions, which rivaled George W. Bush’s as the best of any governor during my years of covering the Legislature. His appointees reformed the Texas Department of Corrections and the Parks & Wildlife department, which, during Clements’ tenure in office, became as concerned about parks as it had was about hunting. (more…)

Tagged: bill clements

The answer is: Rodney Ellis. On the last day of the session, Ellis has become the key player, because he is effectively the minority leader of the Democrats–not just the Senate Democrats, but also the House Democrats. The nineteen Senate Republicans will need at least six Democratic votes to suspend the rules so that the Senate can vote on SB 1811, the school finance/fiscal matters bill, and unless something changes, they have one (maybe Hinojosa).

Republicans (and I assume this includes the light guv) have been warning the D’s that they can make the school plan worse, but the Democrats seem to regard this as an empty threat at this point. Any time that one side draws a line in the dirt, as the Democrats have done here, the question is: What is the end game? (See, Whitmire, John, Albuquerque 2003).  The situation reminds me of a deadlock that took place in the House on the last night of 1999 session. Sylvester Turner was blocking (if I remember correctly), a tax cut sought by Governor Bush. For two hours everybody just stood around and waited for something to be resolved. Speaker Laney was walking around the floor as if he didn’t have a care in the world. I asked him what the situation was. “Well,” he drawled,” “they have taken the hostages, but they can’t figure out what to put in the ransom note.” That is the situation Ellis finds himself in today. He’s holding the Senate Republican majority hostage, but if negotiations follow, what, exactly, do he and the Democrats want–and is it attainable?

Tagged: Rodney Ellis, senate

After last night’s dramatic play by Senator Davis, the calculation this morning seems to be: Will the Dems fare better or worse in a special? There is still time to undo the maneuver, if six Democrats join the Rs in a 4/5 vote to suspend the rules today. Perry’s spokesperson promised even before Davis pulled the trigger that there would be consequences if the Democrats went nuclear. (You have to wonder if there will also be consequences for Straus and Pitts, for waiting so long to debate fiscal matters and school finance–if, as Harvey Kronberg observed yesterday, “debate” is the right term for last night’s brief treatment of the second most important bill of the session.)

But what about those “consequences” for the Democrats? It’s hard to see the budget deal getting any worse from their perspective. What are the Rs going to do? Move more money out of Medicaid, making the 2013 supplemental, already estimated at around $5 billion, even larger? Cut public ed even more? House members could barely swallow the cuts they had to make to their ISDs this time around. (Ten more no’s in the House, and Davis wouldn’t have had to filibuster anything.) There’s always sanctuary cities, which died in the Senate when the Ds declined to suspend the rules to debate it. But did the Rs ever really want to vote on that one? It’s no secret the leadership has always been split on draconian immigration bills–big money donors like Bob Perry always fight them, and forward thinking consultants tell them it’s bad for the long term prospects of the party in a state that is now majority-minority.

This was one of those times when it was useful to have the 2/3 rule, so the Dems could be safely blamed. Of course, in a special, the rule wouldn’t apply. It’s up to Perry to decide what is on the agenda, and he has already promised a special as early as tomorrow. Difficult calculations all around this morning. One assumes that running over Davis in redistricting was not a difficult calculation. Then again, there’s nothing more dangerous than a politician with nothing to lose.

NATE BLAKESLEE

Tagged: special session, wendy davis

I heard about the threat from a Democratic senator. The veto would be retribution for the Wendy Davis’s filibuster that killed the school finance bill and forced a special session, which Perry did not want. If the Legislature fails to pass a redistricting bill during the regular session, the task falls to the Legislative Redistricting Board, which includes the lieutenant governor, the speaker, the attorney general, the comptroller, and the land commissioner–all of whom, of course, are Republicans. The LRB would then be in a position to punish Democratic senators by relocating their districts to new constituencies, such as Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico.

Democrats have been playing for time all session, in the hope that the public will become engaged (or enraged) by what the Legislature has done to education. They would like nothing more than to see the galleries and the hallways packed with vacationing school teachers. It would also be a thorn in the governor’s side to have a special session during the period when the governor must sign or veto bills–possibly giving lawmakers an shot to override vetoes. But teachers are not prolific voters, and the intensity of public engagement in recent years has been much higher among Republican voters than among Democrats. Which is why we have 101 R’s in the House.

The failure of school finance and other bills in the House last night was predictable. The House has operated with no sense of urgency all session. It stands at ease for long periods of time. The languid pace came back to haunt the leadership last night, as Democrats tried to kill the clock and Republicans, notably Bonnen, tried to circumvent the Laney rules, which were put in place to prevent sneaky things from happening in the closing days. Most veterans, myself included, think that the Laney rules, which are a series of deadlines, have changed the legislative process for the better and prevent a lot of mischief. Today is supposed to be for “technical corrections” only. Instead, there could be a frenzy of suspending the rules. I hope the speaker enforces the Laney calendar–although, I am told, even Laney violated his own rules at least once (in 2001). The rules exist to protect the members, not to provide a way to wire around the failure of the House to act in previous days when major bills endured postponement after postponement (see HB 400). I agree with Harold Dutton, who said from the back mike last night,  “We are torturing the rules in this House.”

Tagged: legislative redistricting board, rick perry, wendy davis

This is an exact quote from the working paper of a senior adviser to Straus:

Option 1

Year 1–50% reduction from target revenue & 50% reduction from regular program

Year 2–50% reduction from target revenue & 50% reduction from regular program

Provisions sunset 8/31/2-13

Interim Committee to study school finance

Option 2:

Year 1 — proportionate reduction under current funding structure (Eissler)

Year 2–implementation of 1st year of SB 22 (Shapiro 25%/75%)

Estimate $4 billion owing FYs 2014 and 2015

Provisions sunset 8/31/2013

Interim Committee to study public school finance

There is an “understanding” that House Appropriations and Senate Finance can set the rates.

Everything that I have written here comes from two documents that I have seen, one from Sylvester Turner, the other from the senior Straus adviser.

* * * *

These were the two options that were on the table. The conferees chose to go with Option 2.

Eissler (pro-ration) is a 6% cut for all districts, including low target-revenue districts. In other words, the poorest districts get hurt the most.

SB 22, which I believe was the best of all options, is much better for poor districts.

The House insisted on a Sunset provision in two years.

Tagged: Florence Shapiro, Rob eissler, school finance

This has been such a bizarre incident. Patrick and Dewhurst went at each other verbally, but in loud voices, in a Senate committee of the whole earlier today. One of the subjects was David Simpson’s anti-grouping bill, about which I wrote earlier. Patrick manipulated a situation in which he was able to accuse of Dewhurst of sinking his and Simpson’s anti-groping bill Tuesday night — and, further, of being “someone who will not stand up to the federal government.” I’m no admirer of Dewhurst’s leadership of the Senate this session, but Patrick, in one moment, reverted to the showboat side of himself that he has kept under wraps this session. This is theatre of the absurd. What is a responsible politician supposed to do when a U.S. Attorney says that a state legislative action is in violation of federal law and warns that the federal government will seek an emergency stay old the legislation? Perhaps Dewhurst could send Brandon Creighton to negotiate. I don’t think sending the federal government a copy of the Tenth Amendment is going to change the U.S. Attorney’s mind. This has to be one of the all-time clownish moments of the Texas Legislature.

Oh, ye liberals, Democrats and college professors, weep. There is no doubt now that the man you love to hate – Governor Rick Perry – will be the biggest winner of the 82nd Legislature.

Perry has gotten his way on almost every item on is legislative agenda and squeezed the state budget turnip until it bled. Perry is the flavor of the week nationally for the politicos and pundits looking for a candidate of principled policy and pizzazz to join the Republican presidential contest. And Perry’s biggest public relations flop of the session – meddling with higher education – hasn’t fazed him in the least. If you believe the higher education community and alumni and newspaper backlash to Perry’s support of Jeff Sandefer and his proposed “Seven Breakthrough Solutions” for university reform have prompted Perry to back off, think again.

Sources close to the governor tell me that in either late June or July, Perry will unveil his own proposal for higher education reform. While the details are still being worked out, it is sure to contain his call for $10,000 undergraduate degrees, greater efficiencies in the teaching of undergraduates, teacher accountability and a potential rebalancing of instructional and research budgets with a goal of lowering the cost of a bachelor’s degree. Perry, in his Austin American-Statesman op-ed, said academia wants him to “butt out.” He’s not going to: “Our knowledge-dependent economy and you — the taxpayer footing the bills — deserve better.” (more…)

Tagged: higher education, Jeff Sandefer, president, rick perry

Patrick was genuinely angry when he blamed Lt. Gov. Dewhurst for sinking his anti-groping bill Tuesday night. But his decision to stand by that accusation in the cold light of day Wednesday afternoon was much more interesting, as was his choice of words. “Someone who will not stand up to the federal government–” Patrick said of Dewhurst, “you have to ask yourself: ‘Is that the kind of person you want in the U.S. Senate?’” Was this the first shot across the bow in a coming primary battle between Dewhurst and Patrick for U.S. Senate? (more…)

I’m really tired of hearing how sincere David Simpson is, how strong his principles are, how concerned he is about protecting the privacy of his family and all Americans from the sex-starved fingers of federal security officials. Can’t we just acknowledge that, however sincere he is, his bill to prevent pat-downs is crazy? Has it occurred to him that air travel will come to a halt in this state if his bill passes? Does he really think that he can pass a bill that compels federal employees to risk violating a Texas criminal law?

He may, but John E. Murphy begs to differ. Mr. Murphy is United States Attorney for the Western District from Texas, and upon learning of Simpson’s bill, and (presumably), having a good laugh about it, wrote Straus, Dewhurst, and the chief administrative officials of the House and Senate the following letter:

Dear Leaders:

I write with regard to HB 1937, which I understand will imminently be presented to the Texas Senate for a vote. This office, as well as the Southern, Norther, and Eastern District of Texas United States Attorneys, would like to advise you of the significant legal and practical problems that will be created if the bill becomes law. As you are no doubt aware, the bill makes it a crime for a federal Transportation Security Official (“TSO”) to perform the security screening that he or she is authorized and required by federal law to perform. The proposed legislation would make it unlawful for a federal agent such as a TSO to perform certain specified searches for the purpose of gaining access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation. That provision would this criminalize searches that are required under federal regulations in order to ensure the safety of the American public….

Murphy’s letter continues:

HB 1937 would conflict directly with federal law. The practical import of the bill is that it would threaten criminal prosecution of Transportation Security Administration personnel who carry out the security procedures required under federal statutes and TSA regulations passed to implement those statutes. Those officials cannot be put to the choice of risking criminal prosecution or carrying out their federal duties. UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, TEXAS HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FEDERAL AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR FEDERAL DUTIES OR TO PASS A STATUTE THAT CONFLICTS WITH FEDERAL LAW. [emphasis is mine]

Finally, there is this dire warning:

If HB 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seem an emergency stay of the statute. Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it would not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.

I note with some dismay that Dan Patrick is the Senate sponsor of this legislation.  This is not the bill to grab headlines over. It just reveals  how far the Republican rank and file to support offbeat bills that shake an imaginary fist at the federal government, even if they threaten public safety.