[Editors note: an earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that the Texas Association of School Administrators and the Texas Association of School Boards were among the groups that met with Senator Royce West last weekend to discuss the school finance plan. Neither TASA nor TASB were present at a meeting with West. However, sources close to West confirm that the TASB did convey to him that it was ambivalent about the possible benefit of a special session. The post has been corrected.]

The test pilots of the 1950s had a saying for when one of their own messed up and lost an aircraft. The pilot, they said, had “screwed the pooch.” Senator Wendy Davis, her Democratic colleagues, and their consultants have—in the lingo of the test pilots—screwed the pooch.

Davis’ session-ending filibuster on the public school funding formulas was hailed earlier this week as a noble stand for education and a kick in the shins of the possible presidential aspirations of Governor Rick Perry. But after talking with many sources this week who have intimate knowledge of the events leading up to the filibuster, I have a different view of it. Now it looks far more like a pyrrhic victory that increases the possibility that bills will pass that will harm teachers and the Texas Democratic Party for the decade to come. (more…)

Tagged: filibuster, rick perry, senate, special session, wendy davis

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

I keep getting e-mails from friends in the politics game that Bill White is going to switch to run for governor. Got one this morning, in fact. Burnt Orange gives life to the rumors today as well. My Houston-based colleague Mimi Swartz made some calls at my request, including to a source close to White, and says it’s just more of the same. I have previously thought that White should run for governor, but that was before the recent gubernatorial elections in which the Democrats got massacred. There is too much of a risk that 2010 is going to be a terrible year for Democrats in Texas for White to take his chances on a general election ballot. He’s better off waiting for Hutchison to resign, which she will do eventually (but most likely after the filing deadline) and running in a special election.

Tagged: bill white, senate

I confess that I didn’t pay a lot of attention to Dan Patrick’s reelection announcement last week, but one thing struck me as very peculiar. Here are the first three paragraphs of the release:

“During the past few weeks there has been speculation I might run for, or be appointed to, higher office. My goal is to return to the Texas Senate to continue to fight for the conservative values and principles in which I and many Texans believe.

“Today, I hereby announce my re-election campaign for the Texas Senate. If an opportunity presents itself to serve in the United States Senate, I will seriously consider it at the appropriate time, but my sights are set on the Texas Senate. I feel honored and blessed each day I walk onto the Senate floor to represent my district and my state.

Does this strike anybody else as a weird way to announce for reelection to the Texas Senate — by declaring one’s interested in serving in the United States Senate?

Could this scenario come to pass: Perry is looking for someone to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison, his Republican primary rival for governor. What is Perry looking for in a replacement? The qualifications are the same that Perry always has: (1) Is he loyal? (2) Can he help me politically?

Who better than a Republican talk radio host with a huge following in Houston? Patrick can be on the radio every day blasting Hutchison and pumping up Perry. Then, after Patrick has done his part of the bargain, Perry holds up his end by appointing Patrick.

Can Patrick hold the seat? That is not a sure thing, but the Republicans ought to be able to raise enough money in Texas and beyond to win. The advantage of Patrick over Dewhurst is that Patrick is closer to the Republican base and can generate pro-Perry (and anti-Hutchison) turnout.

Patrick and Perry have already demonstrated that they can cut a deal together. The financially strapped Cy-Fair school district, third largest in the state, had gotten in financial trouble due to the Perry-approved school finance scheme that strangles the schools, and also because of the district’s own generosity in handing out an optional homestead exemption, as around 200 district do, ranging from poor to rich. Patrick took credit for arranging that extra money be directed to Cy-Fair, but in fact the payment was required by state law, which directs unspent money to be spent on the optional homestead exemption and other needs, such as school districts that are impacted by disasters. When I first read about the Perry-Patrick deal, I thought it was a bailout, but Patrick was only taking credit for something that would have happened anyway as mandated by state law. Meanwhile, Cy-Fair gets to keep its excessive homestead exemption and, assuming that money is available, continue to be bailed out by state tax dollars.

Patrick is largely unknown beyond the boundaries of his radio broadcasts, and there is no certainty that he could hold the seat. It would probably make more sense for Perry to appoint Dewhurst, who can self-fund the race, if necessary.

Yes, I am letting my imagination run wild here, but, you have to admit, Patrick’s deft solicitation for the Senate appointment suggests where his real interest lies.

Tagged: Cy-fair school district, dan patrick, kay bailey hutchison, rick perry, senate

I missed this story from the Startlegram on Saturday. The first few paragraphs:

No one seems to be mentioning U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Arlington, as a candidate to replace outgoing Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

Turns out that Barton — who came in third in the 1993 special election that Hutchison won in a runoff — is indeed thinking about running.

“Congressman Barton continues to watch the developments in Texas politics with an interested eye,” spokesman Sean Brown said. “He believes serving the entire state of Texas as their next senator would be an honor. If and when an opportunity presents itself, he will discuss it with his wife, family and supporters before making any decision.”

I checked out Barton’s latest financial disclosure form, after a few false starts. He reports $1,415,151.02 cash on hand in mid-July. All of it has been raised under federal rules and would transfer to a Senate race. One problem: Craig Murphy, a longtime Barton ally, is helping Roger Williams, who is also running for Hutchison’s seat.

Since there are really two races going on here, one for Governor Perry’s appointment to fill a vacancy in the event Hutchison resigns, and one for the seat itself, the question is whether Perry might consider choosing Barton. I don’t know anything about their personal relationship, but I do think that Barton is Perry’s kind of Republican. Dewhurst, who has the deepest pockets, has the fundraising advantage, but Barton holds a lot of chits from the days when he chaired the Commerce committee, a magnet for well heeled lobbyists. The GOP field is not the strongest. Stranger things have happened.

Tagged: david dewhurst, joe barton, kay bailey hutchison, rick perry, Roger Williams, sean brown, senate

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

The Maine legislature is considering a measure that would merge the House and Senate into a single body. The House currently contains 151 members, the Senate 35. The proposal would convert the legislature into a single house of 151 members. The idea was proposed as a way to save money. This is the report from Maine Public Broadcasting:

After voting to shrink itself, the Maine House has now endorsed a plan to replace itself, and the State Senate, with so-called unicameral Legislature that would merge both chambers into one body.

That one body would contain the same number of members that the House currently contains, 151. The Senate now has 35 members.

Supporters say the constitutional change would save the state millions of dollars during a typical, two-year legislative session, and improve the Legislature’s efficiency. But opponents say a unicameral Legislature lacks checks and balances.

The only other unicameral Legislature in the nation is Nebraska’s, which merged its two chambers in 1937.

The measure requires more votes in both the House and Senate. Today’s vote in the House fell short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed for final passage.

Hmm … eliminate the Senate? Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

Tagged: house, maine state legislature, senate

Ever since Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst wired around the 2/3 rule to pass congressional redistricting in 2003, I have believed that the rule cannot survive in the partisan era. It may still have some life in issues that don’t have partisan overtones, but the maneuvering on the Voter I.D. bill indicates that the majority will not let Senate tradition stand in its way when the issue is one that inflames partisan passions. If the minority bands together to try to thwart passage of a measure that is important to the majority, the majority will simply find a way to change the rules. That is what happened in the Senate last week. And it will happen again and again.

Tommy Williams characterized (in a conversation with Patricia Kilday Hart and me) the Democrats’ opposition to Voter I.D. as a “tyranny of the minority.” Read Tocqueville, read Madison’s The Federalist No. 10, and they make the case that the greatest danger to democracy is tyranny of the majority. Not that I think that senators are going to rush to the Legislative Reference Library to read the works cited, but the concept of a “tyranny” that is embedded in Senate practice and tradition does not compute.

The two-thirds rule is the most important procedural device in the legislative process in Texas. It operates as a check upon the majoritarian tendencies of the lower house. If allowed to operate as it has in the past, it assures that before a bill can become law, it must have consensus support. If that support is lacking, it requires members to seek compromises. (The filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate has the same effect, and Republicans are about to find out what happens when the minority lacks the votes to break a filibuster.) Take away the two-thirds requirement and the Senate is just the House with fewer desks.

Now that the precedent has been set that the majority can write the Senate rules to give selected bills a “get out of jail free” card, what is to stop the majority, two years from now, from engaging in logrolling so that each member can get his pet legislation on the list of bills that will be set according to special orders, rather than going through the normal process?

I don’t like the Voter I.D. bill — Republicans nationwide have put too much effort into passing these laws for me not to believe that it is a vote-suppression technique — but I would feel the same way about the 2/3 rule if we were talking about the blocker bill to tend to the Capitol landscaping. You can’t have an effective democracy unless you protect the rights of the minority. The majority ought to have to clear hurdles before it gets its way. The two-thirds rule is a hurdle that has defined the Texas Senate for at least half a century. In the Republican caucus, the vote to keep it was only 12 for and 7 against. Switch three votes and it’s gone.

Tagged: david dewhurst, senate, tommy williams, two-thirds rule, voter ID

No one should be surprised that Hutchison has a substantial lead over Perry. She has always polled better than he has. What is surprising—according to the Hutchison camp—is that his support among Republican primary voters is down 10% since his 2006 race. (I will ask the Perry forces for their evaluation of this poll next week.)

When you’re down by 24 points, you can’t just run on your record. Perry is going to have to engage in a big-time negative campaign. It is always a risk for a man to attack a woman. But he can’t let her build a wall around herself with her personality, which is her strong suit. He is going to have to define her as being way out of step with the views of Republican primary voters. “Democrat Lite” is the phrase that the Perry forces are already using. He will try to turn her strength — her ability to deliver federal money to Texas — into a weakness by portraying her as a spender. They’ll call her Kay “Bailout” Hutchison (she voted for the financial bailout but not for the automobile version). Negative campaigns are risky business. This year, at least, they seemed to turn voters off. But that may be exactly what Perry needs to do. He wants to get the March Republicans into the primary and keep the November Republicans away.

Redefining Hutchison is not the only thing that a negative campaign can accomplish. The Perry team wants to make this race as unpleasant for Hutchison as possible. The easiest (and maybe the only) way for them to win this race is not to win it on election day, but to win it on filing deadline day, by driving Hutchison out of the race. Hutchison has backed away from two previous races against Perry. That is the biggest problem that she has right now. The hidden battle of the race is the one Perry and Hutchison are waging for the loyalties of the major Republican players and donors. Hutchison has to persuade them that she is in it for keeps this time, and until she formally announces her candidacy, there are still going to be a lot of doubters out there.

Tagged: hutchison poll, kay bailey hutchison, rick perry, senate, texas republican primary voters

I am going to publish below an e-mail and corresponding op-ed that I received from Senator Eliot Shapleigh. It requires no explanation.

# # # #

This is Shapleigh’s letter to me:

I’ve read your recent pieces on major issues, including tuition. In my view you miss the point. After fifteen years of what the world now recognizes as the “Bush brand”, Texas is now firmly in “Grover’s Tub”. Your reporting misses the point because your world view can’t see over the Tub’s edge.

For years now, Grover Norquist has been the ideological father of the Bush-Perry-Craddick school of governance. His ideology—‘shrink government so small that we can then drown it in a bathtub’—has run Texas since Bush was first elected Governor.

Now, in agency after agency, tax cuts for the wealthy, incompetent leadership and irresponsible governance have created enormous challenges that will take Texans years to correct.

The question you pose about tuition de-regulation is in fact far deeper. Take the whole package—the Grover package—that is the issue. Tax cuts over kids, crony contracts over competence, polluters over regulators, predatory lenders over consumer protections—ask the question about that package, then measure where we are in every agency—not just at UT with tuition deregulation.

My response: I think everyone understands that Texas is a low-tax, low-services state. I don’t think it is fair or accurate to ascribe this state of affairs to the last 14 years. Democrats governed Texas much as Republicans are now doing. They didn’t pay much attention to environmental issues. They didn’t rein in lenders; in fact, they lifted restrictions on usury. The special interests almost always get their way. That was true when the Democrats were in charge and it is true when the Republicans are in charge. At least the lobby had to fight for what they could get when the Democrats ran the state. Now the leadership just lavishes them with goodies. The one thing Democrats did do differently than Republicans was raise taxes when the going got tough. They raised the gasoline tax and the sales tax and the franchise tax, and the world did not come to an end, and the economy did just fine.

I know that it suits Senator Shapleigh’s purpose to lump Bush in with Perry and Craddick, but the truth is that Bush went along with Democratic spending priorities when he was governor. I don’t recall that he ever vetoed a line item. Perry accurately, though unkindly, described him as a big spender.

Texas government is the way that it is because this is a conservative state, and there is little movement for change. The Republicans are in trouble because they have overreached in areas like tuition deregulation. Senator Shapleigh writes as if he hasn’t followed the election returns. The Republicans have paid dearly for their ideological zeal in the Perry/Craddick/Dewhurst years. Their brand is tarnished and they are losing ground in Texas.

I admire Eliot Shapleigh, and I think it is important that he reminds us of the shortcomings of state government. But it didn’t start with Perry/Craddick/Dewhurst, and state leaders through the years haven’t needed a Grover Norquist to discipline them into keeping this a low-tax, low-service state.

[Back to Shapleigh] Herein below is our recent OP ED piece on Texas Higher education. You should run it in your column.

In our view, the real question is what price has Texas paid for fifteen years of Bush—Perry—Craddick?

More importantly, what are Texans willing to do to change it?

# # # #

Let’s analyze core issues in higher ed. Take two plain vanilla Midwest America universities, each with 29,000+ students—call them Texas Tech and University of Iowa. Now, let’s look at state general revenue support over a decade. The difference between Iowa and Tech is $1.84B—that is billion–with a “B”. Basically, that’s why we have tuition deregulation.

Here’s some history—in 2003, Craddick killed the inheritance tax, then he gave unelected regents (most of whom are millionaires and direct beneficiaries of Craddick’s tax cuts) the right to tax students. Dollar for dollar, revenue from a tax paid only by millionaires was replaced with tuition hikes paid by students—all outside the control of lawmakers so Craddick’s supporters could go back to districts and run again on ‘no new tax’ pledges.

At UTEP tuition, fees, books and parking have risen 73% since 2003. Craddick and Company refuse to consider real revenue sources because long ago—they took Grover’s pledge and now refuse to engage in real governance.

In agency after agency, Texans now face the same issue presented by tuition deregulation—not enough money to take care of basic needs and not enough courage and leadership to fund those needs in an effective way.

Let’s do a quick tour: TXDOT is $86b in the hole. Craddick’s school finance plan has districts on the verge of Chapter 11. TCEQ is run by Baker Botts. At CPS, ½ the investigators quit every six months due to America’s lowest child investigator pay and highest investigator case loads; agency directors pay $4m fines to the feds rather than fund basic levels of investigators for kids.

At HHS, more Texans sit on some waiting lists than actually get served. Hawkins has paid a billion for the basic software program to [implement--added by pb] HB 2292, and it still doesn’t work. Perry’s mansion burned down because cameras quit working and DPS cut staff.

We are last in dropouts, first in air pollution; 48th in average SAT’s and 45th in home ownership. We are last in Texans who have health insurance. Seven Texas MSA’s rank among America’s top ten in volume of subprime second mortgages.

Here, on the streets of El Paso, vendors hawk payday loans on street corners that carry 1100% per annum interest rates. More than one in three in my hometown no longer have any health insurance.

In thirty years or so, Texas will be home to 50m Texans. Hispanics will long [have been] the majority. With current leadership and current values, ask your readers this question–are we even close to preparing for the next generation?

Are we even close to taking care of Texas today?

Is a tiny band from the far right now discredited everywhere but Austin, that has long valued tax cuts for the wealthy over good schools for kids responsible enough to continue governing Texas?

That’s the question in Craddick’s race—and every race for the next few years.

Senator Eliot Shapleigh

(more…)

Tagged: de-regulation, eliot shapleigh, grover norquist, higher ed, senate, texas, tuition