WFAA’s Brad Watson posted the story on the Dallas station’s website yesterday evening:

There is a strong indication Thursday that state’s top lawyer has set his sights upon the Texas Governor’s Mansion. 

A source who has spoken with Republican donors says Attorney General Greg Abbott is saying he’ll run for governor next year, challenging Rick Perry. With the 83rd Texas Legislative Session underway this week, Gov. Perry says he’s focused on state business not re-election.

“I’ll make my decision about what I’m going to do at the appropriate time, which will be June, July of this year,” he said. 

But until then, he can’t raise any money. 

State law doesn’t allow Perry to accept campaign cash from Dec. 8 until after the regular session, June 17. The blackout covers Abbott, too. 

However, a Republican source who knows of fundraising activity at this level told News 8 that, ahead of that December deadline, Abbott told big donors eager to back him in a run for governor that he would.

When asked for a reaction by KVUE in Austin, Perry recalled the last prominent Republican to challenge him in a primary:

“Sen. Hutchison also announced that she was going to run for governor back in 2009 so everybody gets the freedom to do that,” Perry said of the just retired senator he easily beat in 2010. “I’m real focused, which I hope the General is, too, on this legislative session.”

But Perry could be significantly behind in the money race by mid-year.

At the midpoint of 2012, Abbott already had $14.5 million on hand, according to the finance records he’s filed with the Texas Ethics Commission. Perry has just $3.4 million.

Should Abbott widen the gap by summer, Perry was asked if that would discourage him from running.

“I’ve been underestimated many times before so we’ll just let it sit right there,” the governor replied.

In my post on Tuesday, about the first day of the session, I noted Perry’s meandering remarks to the House of Representatives. This was a moment when Perry could have seized the bully pulpit and laid out an agenda to move Texas forward. He did touch on some vague proposals about infrastructure and education but, as usual, he made no concrete proposals. Perry behaved very much like someone who has retired, which in fact is exactly what he is. He couldn’t have cared less.

In any event, my sense of the speech was that Perry isn’t going to run for reelection, and he isn’t going to run for president. Maybe he has already arranged for his exit, and maybe he and Abbott have cut a deal. I don’t think he’ll take on Abbott because he doesn’t want to lose, and I think Abbott would beat him.

So what does it mean for the state Republican party? When he is engaged, Perry is a better politician than Abbott. But Abbott is sharper than Perry, and he is more transparent. I can’t see Abbott engaging in crony capitalism, certainly not to the degree Perry does. And he is more interested in public policy. But I sense in Abbott an absence of empathy.

Perry’s great failing as governor was (if I may be permitted to use the past tense) that he made no effort to represent all the people of Texas. He only cared about catering to the ideology of the hard right. It is unconscionable that Perry is willing to forgo Medicaid expansion that could pump millions, perhaps billions, of dollars into the Texas economy that could benefit the state’s hospitals and doctors, while withholding quality health care to uncounted thousands of Texans, all for the sake of thumbing his nose at Obama. I would like to think that Abbott would be practical enough to accept the expansion. He is not as ideologically rigid as Perry, but he is one of the most partisan of all the state officials. We saw that in redistricting.

This news comes at a moment when the state Republican party is in desperate need of rebranding. It is essentially a collection of tea parties. Perry has demonstrated no interest in rebranding the party. Nor does Abbott strike me as one who thinks that the party needs rejuvenation. The mantle should fall on Joe Straus, but the tea parties that seek to bring Straus down are blind to the fact that he is the person best situated to rebuild the party. Anyone who doubts that Straus is not a “real” Republican did not hear him say (as I did shortly after he put together the votes to be speaker in 2009), “I am Republican to the core.” Well, you can’t fix stupid, as Ron White likes to say. If the Republicans can’t figure out that Straus is the best person to chart their future, that’s their loss.

And so, we have reached the moment at which it is possible, for the first time in a decade, to envision an occupant of the Governor’s Mansion other than Rick Perry. He has hit the wall, and I think he knows it. He stayed too long, and he has lost the mojo that is an essential quality of a successful politician. Perry has had an amazing career, but he has reached the point at which he has nowhere to go except o-u-t.

Tagged: greg abbott, rick perry

The school board voted 5-1 to approve the measure, making Pflugerville the first district in the state to offer such benefits.

As many readers are no doubt aware, state senator Dan Patrick has asked attorney general Abbott to rule on whether domestic partner benefits are legal under the state’s 2005 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear two cases involving the constitutionality of same-sex marriage will surely have an impact on Abbott’s decision. The most likely result is that this and other issues relating to same-sex marriage will be put on the back burner until the high Court has made a ruling on constitutionality of DOMA (and other issues involving the right of states to define marriage). In any event, I doubt that Senator Patrick will get the answer he wants.

Tagged: dan patrick, DOMA, greg abbott

The outcome of this case was predestined. For months, the D.C. court warned that Texas’s failure to provide Hispanic opportunity districts when there were huge Hispanic population gains could be construed as evidence of intentional discrimination. There was no way a fair court could ignore the facts in the case: that Texas qualified for four new congressional seats due almost entirely to Hispanic growth, and yet the Legislature provided no new Hispanic congressional seats. The same could be said for state House districts.

The failure must be laid entirely at Greg Abbott’s door. It was Abbott who tried to make an end run around the Department of Justice by choosing to take his case to the D.C. district court. It was Abbott who kept insisting that the Texas maps were legal. The D.C. court also sniffed out the shenanigans the state was employing to weaken districts where minorities were concentrated by moving out the most active voters and replacing them with less active voting populations–with the connivance of the Speaker of the House, in CD-23. I am sorry to report that I never had a moment’s doubt that Abbott, and Texas, would lose the case.

This is a permanent black mark on Abbott’s record: guilty of intentional discrimination. That won’t soon be forgotten. It is possible, of course, that the Supreme Court could rule in his favor on appeal, but to do so they would have to ignore the finding of intentional discrimination by the D.C. Court of Appeals, one of the most respected courts in the federal system.

It is going to be interesting to see what Abbott and Perry do next. Will they seek to redistrict in the 2013 session, as there were rumblings they might do? The problem for the Republicans is that they cannot draw maps that don’t betray discriminatory intent. They can redistrict, but they can’t get a court to bless their work.

UPDATE: Several readers have raised the issue that it was unfair of me to claim that Abbott is himself guilty of intentional discrimination and to place the blame for the maps solely at his feet. They are right, which I acknowledge below in the comments. I certainly understand what the attorney general’s role and duties are in moving the maps through the preclearance process and defending them under Section V of the Voting Rights Act. But overall, the ruling from the D.C. court does claim that the maps, as drawn by the state’s leaders and subsequently defended in the D.C. court, discriminated against minority voters, which was my main point.

Tagged: greg abbott, redistricting

Perry has been in the news this week, mainly about discussions of his future plans:

Fox News ran a story on Monday, which begins:

The governor and his wife, Anita Perry, in their first interview since Perry dropped out of the Republican presidential race, told Fox News that they regret not jumping into the race sooner, and Anita Perry hopes her husband will decide to run again.

Tagged: greg abbott, rick perry

Let me see if I understand this. First, Abbott wants to avoid submitting the Texas redistricting maps for preclearance at the Department of Justice. He tells everybody that he has figured out how to bypass the DOJ by going to the D.C. Circuit and moving for summary judgment from Republican-friendly judges. Then, to quote a certain prominent presidential candidate, “Oops!” The D.C. court denies summary judgment and orders a three-judge panel for the Western District of Texas to draw the maps. But the panel’s state House and Senate maps aren’t as GOP-friendly as the maps drawn by the Lege. All of a sudden Abbott’s strategy doesn’t look quite so clever, and legislators, particularly in the House, are screaming bloody murder. So what does Abbott do? Having previously bypassed the DOJ, which could have gone through its preclearance routine by now had Abbott submitted the state’s maps in a timely fashion, he criticizes the DOJ for “dragging its feet” in the approval of the original maps. Not surprisingly, the DOJ has returned fire and placed the blame squarely on Abbott, referring to the state’s “inexplicable litigation decisions.” It seems clear to me that Abbott tried to have his cake and eat it too. Well, he’s going to end up eating something all right, but I don’t think it’s going to be cake.

Tagged: department of justice, greg abbott, redistricting

At my request, Attorney General Abbott’s office provided me with a copy of the State’s “Petition for Review of the final action of the respondent United States Environmental Protection Agency” in determining that Texas’s current State Implementation Plan (SIP) is not approvable” [quoting from the Federal Register].

This is a huge deal. The future of the state’s petrochemical and refining industries are riding on the outcome, involving thousands of jobs and significant economic activity in exported products, as well as the prospects for cleaner air. The case is filed in the Firth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

The state’s petition sets out no claim against the EPA. It does not assert that Texas is meeting the standards of the federal Clean Air Act. It does not accuse the EPA of misapplying the law. I presume that these and other grievances will be aired later before the Court. Along with the petition, which is seven lines of type in its entirety, the AG’s office provided me with the EPA’s final rule in the case, which contains a mother lode of information. Most interesting are the comments from organizations in Texas that support or oppose the EPA’s action.

There is, for example, this response from TxOGA (Texas Oil and Gas Association):

(more…)

Tagged: EPA, greg abbott

I spoke to the attorney general on Friday about the lawsuit he has joined against the health care bill. His first remarks were, “I’m not against health care reform. We should do a better job of taking care of our citizens. It’s a noble cause, but it shouldn’t violate the Constitution. That weakens the nation and tramples constitutional guarantees and framework.

“If the individual mandate is upheld,” Abbott said, “there is no limit on what Congress can order Americans to buy. They could require us to purchase an electric vehicle.”

“The federal government can only take action on enumerated powers in the Constitution. The framers understood that no limits on the government’s power tramples liberty. Congress has to have the authority to act before it can take action.

“The bill invokes the commerce clause. Our belief is that this law violates the commerce clause. Congress does not have the authority to enforce the individual mandate on Americans. The commerce clause has been never been construed to apply to nonactivity or the refusal to engage in activity. The law infringes on the right of the individual to refuse to buy health insurance.

“Congress was warned–the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, warned of the uncertainty of the individual mandate.”

[This warning dates back to the health care debate during the Clinton presidency. The Congressional Budget Office wrote in 1994, during an earlier health care debate, "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government."]

Back to Abbott:

(more…)

Tagged: greg abbott

Two more reasons why Dewhurst decided to announce that he is running for reelection:

(1) I am told by two sources that he called Hutchison to ask about her plans — was she going to resign her seat and if so, when — and he did not like the answer that he got.

(2) Word reached him that Abbott has been saying around town that he was going to run for lieutenant governor. For once, Dewhurst didn’t dither around. His announcement made it much more problematic for Abbott to get in the race. As with KBH, he would have to explain why he is taking on a strong incumbent and dividing the party.

Tagged: david dewhurst, greg abbott, kay bailey hutchison

Dewhurst’s decision to announce for lieutenant governor has touched off intense speculation about whether this is a final decision or a keep-my-options-open decision. Dewhurst has always wanted to be governor, and so I think his plan is to succeed Perry upon his retirement in January 2019.

But seriously, folks … Dewhurst may have moved because of recent talk that Kay Bailey Hutchison may not resign her seat after all. No resignation means no Senate special election, at least not in the short term, and no interim appointment by the governor. There is a constant flow of disinformation about the KBH campaign, the likely source of which is the Perry camp: that she won’t resign, that she won’t run, that she will leave the race and serve out her term.

Another reason for Dewhurst to push his chips in is the maneuvering in the Senate Republican Caucus, driven by hard-right conservatives Williams and Fraser. Fraser’s stated intention to take over as President Pro Tem in the event Dewhurst runs for the Senate, and the talk inside the caucus of changing the Senate rules to empower the caucus to organize the chairmanships and the committees forced Dewhurst’s hand. He could not sit around and let the conspiracy gain momentum.

Dewhurst has been on thin ice with senators generally and Republican senators in particular since 2005. Some of it is deserved–his sitting on bills–and some of it is not deserved, in particular the criticism of his absences from the podium when Dewhurst was holding meetings about legislation in the back rooms. But it is clear that there is a group of insurgent Republicans who want to strip him of his power and run the Senate along partisan lines with themselves as the leadership. The most likely long-term effect of this maneuvering will be to divide the Republican caucus and force the moderates to choose among joining with the conservatives, forming an alliance of convenience with the Democrats, or helping Dewhurst suppress the uprising. The Senate is likely to be a very tense place in 2011.

So it appears that everyone is frozen in place until Hutchison’s intentions become apparent: Dewhurst, Abbott, Fraser, Combs, Patterson, Bill White, Sharp, Shapiro, Ames Jones, the Williamses, all dressed up only to find that the ball has been canceled. Four more years of stagnant politics. That is what happens when you have a governor who doesn’t want to do anything except be governor.

Tagged: bill white, david dewhurst, greg abbott, kay bailey hutchison, tommy williams, troy fraser

Aside from the obvious—he wants to go to Washington—I can’t think of a good reason to run for Senate instead of governor.

As things now stand, Hutchison will probably resign her seat in the fall. I believe that Perry will appoint either David Dewhurst or Greg Abbott. Michael Williams would be an interesting choice, but Dewhurst or Abbott should be able to hold the seat in a special election, which would take place in May. Williams would not be a sure thing.

Can White defeat either Dewhurst or Abbott in a special election (no primary, just the top two vote-getters in a runoff)? I don’t see it. Either Dewhurst or Abbott will be able to raise a lot of money. Dewhurst can put his own money into the race. Abbot has been a very successful fundraiser. White can spend personal money as well, but he will be facing an incumbent appointee who has been able to raise money in Washington as an incumbent for six or seven months. Democrats generally do not turn out for special elections as well as Republicans do. That is not good for White either.

On the other hand, suppose that White runs for governor. The Republican nominee will be the survivor of a brutal primary. If the nominee is Rick Perry, he is vulnerable in a general election context. And if it is Hutchison, well, she looked invincible when the first polls came out, but she doesn’t look so strong today. Democrats will be excited about the chance to win a statewide election for the first time since 1994. If White wants to win, he should run for governor.

Tagged: bill white, david dewhurst, greg abbott, senate