Here’s something I hadn’t realized about the Travis County District Attorney. In addition to investigating and prosecuting state level corruption cases (including everyone’s favorite former House Majority Leader), the Travis Co DA’s office has also been responsible for prosecuting criminal environmental cases across the state since 1994 under the Texas Water Code and Texas Health and Safety Code.
Rosemary Lehmberg, the current DA, has been particularly effective at going after large industrial polluters. Since 2009, a special prosecutor, Patty Robertson, has been assigned to the investigation of these cases through a grant from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state agency responsible for granting environmental permits and handing out fines for non-compliance. Since the creation of the environmental crimes unit, the DA’s office has opened 51 cases, handed down 12 convictions and collected over $3.2 million in fines.
The biggest case they’ve tried so far was against Gulf Chemical and Metallurgical Corporation and its former Environmental and Health Services Manager, Rajani Vadlamudi, for the unlawful discharge of a pollutant into state waters. Gulf Chem was ordered to pay a $2.75 million fine and Vadlamudi was additionally fined and placed on deferred adjudication.
In an interview with the Austin Chronicle, Lehmberg described the strategy behind these cases.
I really do believe that even though sometimes we go for an individual - like it might be the main engineer or the president of the company for individual responsibility - mostly what these folks recognize is where it hits them in the pocketbook. And I think that we’re going to end up being more and more aggressive about that. The more we do these, the more we learn that we can assess bigger fines, because that’s what’s punitive to a big company.
Lehmberg will be facing a tough re-election campaign against former Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge, Charlie Baird. Her commitment to environmental justice is definitely worth noting in the lead up to Democratic primary (if it ever happens that is).
This week started off with great news for right-wing bullies, and ended in their defeat.
On Tuesday, the world's leading breast cancer charity announced it would no longer be funding breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood.
Over the past five ears, Komen has given millions to Planned Parenthood, enabling almost 170,000 clinical breast exams to low-income and uninsured women. The collaboration between the two organizations was an obvious and massively beneficial one in the fight against breast cancer.
In late September, Republican Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood to determine whether tax funds were being used for abortion services. The investigation is a political witch hunt designed to discredit Planned Parenthood and its dedication to women's health. Just three months after, Komen caved in and announced it wouldn't fund an organization under federal investigation.
"We've always had the right to cancel contracts if a group was under investigation," the charity's CEO and found Nancy Brinker told reporters.
Komen has partnered with Planned Parenthood for years; they should know that the investigation is nothing but a political smear. But this last year, the leadership at Komen changed. In April of 2011, Komen named Karen Handel their new vice president.
Handel is an extreme social conservative who ran for Governor of Georgia in 2010 on an anti-choice platform. On her campaign blog, Handel wrote that she "do[es] not support the mission of Planned Parenthood." Sarah Palin endorsed her candidacy.
The backlash was massive. Men and women across the country spoke out against politics endangering women's health. Komen's top public health official resigned and numerous affiliated groups severed their ties with the charity. Over the last three days, Planned Parenthood raised $650,000.
After the initial round of backlash, Komen began defending itself by saying that Planned Parenthood simply doesn't provide enough breast cancer services to justify funding. The excuse-change only caused more protest.
Today, Komen apologized and announced it would continue to fund breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood.
"We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives," Brinker said in a statement. "...We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair."
Coupled with the successful anti-SOPA protests last month, it is clear that this is a decade of effective American protest against injustice.
Handel's influence at Komen is clear. But it also appears that the organization simply gave in to fear of right-wing pressure. Rep. Stearn's investigation is the culmination of constant right-wing bullying of Planned Parenthood.
With Komen continuing to fund Planned Parenthood, hundreds of thousands of women will be able to protect themselves from breast cancer. The response to Komen's defunding makes it clear that the majority of Americans stand with women's health and against right-wing bullies.
While this is a women's health issue, it is important to note that men have a fundamental stake in the health of their mothers, sisters, partners, and female friends. In regards to reproduction, heterosexual men want healthy women with whom they can engage in in healthy sexual and romantic lives. We depend on each other's health for our own happiness and the vitality of our country.
When Americans stand up unified against abuse, we win more and more often. Spread the word.
Yesterday, the Charter Revision Committee, appointed by the Austin City Council primarily to consider the representative structure of Austin government (currently all at-large districts) and make a suggestion to the council, finally voted on its suggestions.
The following motions were passed on this penultimate meeting by the committee:
A motion "to change the current structure [of City Council] to some form of geographic representation" passed overwhelmingly. There was one "no" vote - from Ken Rigsbee (a Republican).
A suggestion to Council to then form an independent redistricting commission (that would exist for future census, too) was passed, based on a memorandum by the the committee's working group. More on that below, but this proposal passed with just two dissenters - David Butts and Fred McGhee.
A proposal for a 10-1 plan (10 single member districts and one at-large mayor with no other at-large seats) barely passed after much discussion. The vote was 8-7. The alternative plan, that failed, was 10-2-1.
This is all just the first step. None of these motions become law until the city of Austin, via ballot measure, says so. And nothing will appear on the ballot until the City Council approves it.
You would think that the big story is the almost unanimous support for single-member districts in the first place, but it's not. That was almost an afterthought, and after all, the activist community has supported the idea for decades. (How else would one explain it getting on the ballot six separate times?) The bigger stories were the other two motions.
The heavily supported idea for an independent redistricting commission is huge. In the past, a plan for single member districts would come with a map, and voters would reject the map. It's almost impossible to draw a map that satisfies everyone, so a commission finally came up with a separate proposal. Here, the idea is to put a commission on the ballot, instead, that would ensure that every group has an ability to affect the actual maps. This commission would have 14-members semi-randomly selected from a 60-person pool, generally meeting three major requirements. The first goal is for a "fully diverse commission" based on "gender, race, ethnicity, age, student status, sexual orientation, home address [geography]." Second, strong stipultions would be in place to avoid any conflicts of interest. Third, the pool should be "highly qualified," a phrase that refers largely to voting history, but also would take into account other knowledge bases, such as statistics.
This step is huge: the independent commission idea, instead of a map on the ballot, probably increases the chances of passage. That even "student status" found a place in the document shows how far this commission was willing to go to ensure that every community have a place at the table. (Special thanks to current UT Student Government Representatives John Lawler and Yaman Desai, as well as a few select Austinites for Geographic Representation, for pushing the student measures.) The City Council should keep with this theme, particularly the diversity section.
The other big story, of course, was the final 8-7 vote for a 10-1 system. 10-1 passed the committee (and received heavy audience applause), but the real story is that nothing passed with an overwhelming amount of support. After months of discussions and consistent agreement to adopt Single Member Districts, the committee barely agreed on "how." The 10-1 advocates needed the support Ken Rigsbsee, who was adamantly against any change at all, to win the day. The alternate motion, 10-2-1 (2 would represent a couple at-large seats), failed by the same margin, 7-8. Each side showed passion, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, no one thought, "Your slightly different plan is good enough." Ann Kitchen rhetorically presented 10-2-1 as a compromise idea, but received no votes from 10-1 advocates. Then, upon losing the vote, some in the minority insisted upon its opinion being heavily represented to City Council, anyway
The lack of clear, obvious agreement will affect this process all the way until the voters give word in November. After the committee confirms a staff report of their decisions, likely on February 16, the ball goes to City Council's court. Overwhelming support exists for both change and the independent commission, so every member will likely support change in that direction for fear of backlash. But as for the numerical structure of a Single Member District System: I am sure that 10-1's victory will be taken into account, but I expect each Council Member to give even greater weight to their own, personal opinion. Mayor Leffingwell has pushed a 6-2-1 plan, so he'll likelywill he continue pushing a hybrid? And no one really knows what the others will back, either. Keep in mind that every current member was elected in an at-large seat.
But once City Council agrees to a plan of any sort, what will those who lost their fight do next? Fighting against 10-1, 10-2-1, or anything else is one thing when doing so in these recomendation and legislative settings, but will the same fight continue to the ballot box? If so, Austin is doomed to stay with its draconian system only of at-large districts. City Council should deliberate carefully and actually take into account the winning 10-1 argument from their appointed committee, and each side should feel free to fight for 10-1 or 10-2-1 until the council gives its ruling. But afterwards...here's to hoping everyone comes together so we can actually pass this thing, whatever that may be.
[Below the jump, you will see the vote count for 10-1, and later links will be added to see the documents approved with the second motion for an independent commission.]
(Please welcome Senator Van de Putte to BOR! And if you're in San Antonio, check out the Save Texas Schools conference this weekend. It's such an important issue here in Texas. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
This past legislative session was devastating to our public schools. When lawmakers came to the Capitol a year ago facing an $18 billion budget deficit - a structural deficit caused by ill-advised changes to our state's business tax structure in special session back in 2006 - too many of my colleagues were locked in to a "cuts-only" mentality, adamantly refused to touch the Rainy Day Fund (despite the fact that it was pouring), and slashed funding where it was too often needed most.
One area that got hit hardest was public education. In an incredibly short-sighted move that shortchanges the future of our state, $5 billion was taken from the next generation of Texans and the dedicated professionals responsible for educating them.
We must reverse that decision next year - by acting this year. Although we're still 12 months away from the start of the 83rd session, we cannot wait until 2013 to begin building the political muscle and momentum necessary for change. As of this writing, we're still awaiting decisions in the redistricting trials before we can move ahead with elections, but rest assured, those elections will eventually happen - and you must make those seeking office realize that properly funding education is the top priority for Texans.
To help lay the foundation for this change, please join me Friday, February 3 and Saturday, February 4 for the Save Texas Schools Conference in San Antonio. Pro-education state and local leaders will speak out on how we can turn the tide back toward investing in the future of our children, and on Saturday, workshops will be held that will equip you to support and spread a pro-education agenda in your community.
In the Friday night session, held at the Northside ISD Activity Center (7001 Culebra Road), I will join Mayor Julian Castro, Rep. Mike Villarreal, state Superintendent of the Year Dr. John Folks of Northside ISD, and high school student activist Connor Brantley, among others, to declare our support for turning back the cuts and how to do it. (Dinner will be served.)
On Saturday, at Holmes High School (6500 Ingram Rd.), workshops include such topics as Understanding the Education Funding Crisis, Developing and Supporting Pro-Education Legislators, Sharpening the Education Message, How to Hold a House/Neighborhood Meeting plus a special youth track for high school and college students. A panel discussion with San Antonio area school superintendents and school board members is also planned. (Box lunches will be provided.)
The registration fee is $20 in advance or $25 at the door, and scholarships are available, but space is limited, so sign up now! You may also register individually for Friday or Saturday only.
Don't miss this important event! But whether you attend or not, get involved with defending our public schools! Go to savetxschools.org to learn how, and to register for the conference.
Innovative Latinos Showcased At SXSW: The Social Revolución - This year at South By Southwest (SXSW) Latinos in the digital media space will have their very own lounge, party, and award ceremony highlighting their innovative work in social media and beyond.
The Case Of Yanelli: Why The DREAM Act Is Important - Yanelli came to the United States by herself at the age of 13. She struggled to find work, survive, get an education, but soon despair came to live in her mind, and she struggled with depression. Now she's stuck in the country's quota-driven deportation system.
Tucson Book Ban Is Just More Anti-Latino Rhetoric - The State of Arizona has been foremost in anti-Mexican American legislation, ordinances and rhetoric in recent years. Not surprisingly, the list of removed books from the Tucson schools were mostly written by Spanish surnamed and Native American authors.
A Copy Of Tucson's Banned Book List - People involved in the Mexican American Studies struggle in Tucson, Arizona recently compiled a list of the banned books from the district.
Bien Hecho: Teenage Scientist Named To Forbes List - Javier Fernández-Han was recently named to Forbes' 30 Under 30 list, Fernández-Han latest achievement is discovering a way to make algae digest sewage and covert it into methane as use for fuel.
Pablo Neruda Is The Food Of Nerdy Latino Love - The approach of St. Valentine's signifies the annual season where Latino nerds across los Estados Unidos discover Pablo Neruda. Like Christian using Cyrano De Bergerac, Neruda becomes a proxy for many Latino nerds in expressing their love for another.
The Origins Of One Latina Nerd - Latino nerds are doubly ostracized: we don't fit in mainstream white culture and our Latino communities often shun us because of our bizarre ways, interests, and beliefs. Many times we're accused of "acting white," whatever the hell that means.
Today, President of the Houston Trial Lawyers Association Jason Gibson withdrew from the Democratic primary, endorsing former State Rep. Paul Sadler.
JASON GIBSON STATEMENT ON WITHDRAWAL FROM U.S. SENATE RACE
Jason Gibson issued the following statement on his decision to withdraw from seeking the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate:
"After careful consideration, I have decided to not seek the Democratic nomination for United States Senate. The extensive time and energy needed to raise funds and build name ID around the state in a very narrow time-frame mean too little time and energy left for my family, my law practice and my duties as President of HTLA. This is the right decision for me and my family at this time.
"This was my first time seeking elected office, and I knew that as an outsider, I'd be up against others with institutional advantages. My heart and my upbringing are with the labor movement and I did not want to move forward without their endorsement.
"It has been an honor to travel and talk to voters all over Texas, and I truly appreciate the supporters who embraced our message of a new direction for our great state.
"I still believe that Texas deserves a hardworking U.S. Senator who will challenge gridlock in Washington - that's why I am endorsing fellow Democrat Paul Sadler.
"I remain a proud Texas Democrat and I will explore how I can be helpful in getting other Democrats elected to office in 2012 and beyond."
Gibson's endorsement follows a string of recent endorsements for Sadler, including:
State Senator Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio, State Representative Rafael Anchia of Dallas, State Representative Lon Burnam of Dallas, State Representative and Democratic National Committee Member Yvonne Davis of Dallas, State Representative Joe Deshotel of Beaumont, State Representative Dawnna Dukes of Austin, Former House Democratic Leader Jim Dunnam of Waco, State Representative Scott Hochberg of Houston, State Representative Joe Pickett of El Paso, State Representative Richard Pena Raymond of Laredo, State Representative Mark Strama of Austin, and labor leader Linda Chavez-Thompson.
Update 5:49 p.m.: The Sadler campaign has responded with this release.
Paul Sadler Responds to Jason Gibson's Decision to Withdraw From U.S. Senate Campaign
Austin, TX -- Democratic candidate for the United State Senate Paul Sadler released the following statement today in response to Houston attorney Jason Gibson's decision to withdraw from the race for the Democratic nomination:
"I want to thank Jason Gibson for his willingness to sacrifice time away from his family and his law firm's clients while exploring a run for the United States Senate. I respect his decision that now is not the right time for him to continue in this campaign, but I am sure he will never stop fighting for a better future for our state and our country. Jason's future is surely a bright one.
"I will continue to work hard to earn the votes of Texans who want to return our U.S. Senate seat to its rightful owners -- the working families and small businesses who make our state great."
On Tuesday, trial in the preclearance case wrapped up in Washington and, by all accounts, the trial went very well for redistricting plaintiffs.
But the case is complicated and yesterday the three-judge panel hearing the case told the parties in a minute order that they should not expect a ruling for at least 30 days.
The Court directs the parties to comply fully with the page limits and briefing schedule set in this matter so that it can be timely resolved and also notifies the parties that this Court does not anticipate issuing any order within the next 30 days.
That threw things back in the hands of the San Antonio court, which had been considering whether to wait on the D.C. court's ruling before drawing new maps (an anomaly of the Voting Rights Act is that while only the D.C. court can rule on preclearance issues, it has no power to draw replacement maps to fix them - that's the province of courts back in Texas).
Well, with the window for an April primary rapidly closing (if it hasn't already), the San Antonio court entered an scheduling order this morning, directing briefing by February 10 at 6 p.m. on a number of issues related to interim maps and setting a hearing/status conference for February 15 at 8 a.m. (so much for Valentine's Day for lovelorn lawyers).
The issues the court asked to be addressed include:
* the meaning of the Supreme Court's 'not insubstantial' standard, including the proper allocation of the burden of proof,
* how the county line rule should be applied in interim maps,
* the applicable law on coalition and crossover districts and how it should be applied for purposes of interim maps, and
* whether the court has the authority to waive preclearance requirements for new precinct boundaries
The court also asked that the parties submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by February 10. The court's order said that it was not announcing an election schedule at this time.
Mean time, settlement talks are still going on being redistricting plaintiffs and the State of Texas.
Thanks to a ruling from the 5th Circuit and a request from Greg Abbot to expedite enforcement, Texas' wildly invasive sonogram law is going into effect. Women seeking abortions will be subject to a mandatory ultrasound and forced to look at the sonogram image, and their doctor will be required to read a bunch of medically unnecessary information about fetal development or risk losing their medical license. For women who are less than 10 weeks pregnant, that sonogram will be conducted with a trans-vaginal probe, seen at right.
The law took effect sooner than anticipated, since Attorney General Greg Abbott got permission for immediate enforcement after 5th Circuit Judge Edith Jones struck down Federal Judge Sam Sparks' temporary restraining order on the law. Usually there's a three-week waiting period before laws are enforced. Now the Department of Health Services is writing rules for enforcement of the new law.
Here's a run-down of what happened in the litigation and where anti-probers can go from here.
June 13, 2011: The initial lawsuit against the sonogram bill is filed in federal court, with plaintiffs seeking to prevent the law from going into effect on September 1, 2011. The lawsuit seeks a judgment that the mandatory sonogram law is unconstitutional and unenforceable in whole and/or in part.
August 30, 2011: Judge Sam Sparks issues a temporary restraining order, or TRO, blocking enforcement. Specifically, Sparks' ruling prohibits any enforcement of the provisions requiring the display of the ultrasound, the detailed description of the fetal image, and the audible heart auscultation of the fetus.
January 5, 2012: AG Greg Abbott appeals Sparks' injunction at the 5th Circuit court. The anti-sonogram side continued to argue that the sonograms and compelled speech by the doctors are not medically necessary, and that the State of Texas was trying to insert ideological speech into the doctor-patient relationship.
January 10, 2012: Chief Judge Edith Jones, noted anti-abortion zealot, reversed Spark's TRO and stated that there's precedent for the new Texas law. That gave pause to opponents of the law, since any appeal of Sparks' final decision would have to go back through the 5th Circuit.
January 13, 2012: Abbott gets permission to enforce the sonogram law immediately, rather than wait the usual 3 weeks for the provision to take effect. The 5th Circuit granted his request, thus denying the anti-sonogram side the opportunity to appeal Jones' decision to reverse Sparks' injunction. The Texas Department of State Health Services was instructed to issue rules for compliance with the law, as well as prosecute doctors who do not obey it.
January 20, 2012: At a hearing on the initial lawsuit, Judge Sparks says his "hands are tied" by the 5th Circuit's reversal of his original TRO. Essentially, if Sparks rules for the plaintiffs, Jones is likely to reverse him when the State appeals his decision.
Now What? The best chance for opponents of the invasive sonogram law is for Sparks to rule against the law on constitutional grounds, and then have the ensuing appeal by the state take place en banc, or to the entire 5th Circuit, not just a three-judge panel including the dreaded anti-choice Judge Jones. A majority of the 17 judges on the 5th Circuit would have to agree to rehear it, and then could potentially reverse Judge Jones. Not all 17 would have to hear the case. Or at least that's my understanding. Other Circuit courts have ruled against similar laws, so there's a solid chance that a wider group of judges ruling on our sonogram law at the 5th Circuit might produce a different outcome.
Conceivably if Sparks does rule, and then the losing side appeals to the 5th Circuit, the losing side there can appeal to the Supreme Court. It's not clear however if the SCOTUS would take up the case, and given the current ideological swing of the court to the right thanks to George W. Bush's appointments, how the anti-sonogram side would fare.
So that's where we are. We'll keep you updated on this issue as it continues.
In an effort to get our work out to a wider audience, Burnt Orange Report recently partnered with Politics in Stereo to start linking our posts to their site. Politics in Stereo is a great new site that links content from state-level left-leaning, non-partisan, and right-leaning blogs across the country. We're happy to be the Texas blog from the Democratic / progressive / lefty perspective. The Texas Tribune will provide the non-partisan perspective, and Big Jolly Politics will provide the conservative / Republican / right wing approach to the issues of the day.
Thanks to Politics in Stereo for reaching out to us! Texas is the first state to be added to their site since the original six they launched with. This is a solid effort to help promote the work of state bloggers, something that we at BOR heartily support! Go check them out.
Today the Texas Tribune released an interactive map showing the uninsured in Texas by city - all 5.7 million of them. They also include a breakdown by demographics.
In December, the Tribune released data on food stamp use by county, which we blogged about here. The concentrations of uninsured are, unsurprisingly, similar to the concentrations of food stamp use - found mostly in the major cities and the Rio Grande Valley. While these maps and data sets are indeed fun to play with, they're a sad reminder of how impacted some of these areas are on so many indicators of poverty.
Some notable lowlights from the Tribune data:
Nearly a quarter of Texas' population lacked health insurance in 2010, compared to the national average of 15 percent.
Of the four largest cities, Dallas has the highest percentage of uninsured at 33%, followed by Houston at 31%. Even sadder are the correlating uninsured rates for children - 24% of Dallas children are uninsured, followed by 21% of Houston children. San Antonio and Austin fare much better, at 22% and 23% respectively overall with uninsured rates for children in the teens, but still significantly above the national average.
It's not just the big cities with the high rates of uninsured - looking at the map you certainly see clusters of high uninsured rates along the Dallas-Houston-San Antonio triangle and in the Valley, but there are highly impacted rural areas as well: places like Socorro (42%), West Odessa (41%), Eagle Pass (31%), Del Rio (29%), and Sherman (29%), to name a few.
San Juan has the highest rate of uninsured in the state at an unbelievable 45%, with over 25% of its children uninsured.
The lowest rates of uninsured are generally about where you'd expect - places like Southlake, Colleyville, The Woodlands, and Sugarland.
As health care remains a central issue of the 2012 elections from the national level down to the local, it's important to remember how Texas fares on this indicator: not well.
State Rep. Carol Alvarado sent a letter to the Komen Foundation yesterday, directed at their founder and CEO Nancy Brinker, former Ambassador to Hungary during the George W. Bush administration. Brinker named the organization after her sister Susan, who succombed to the disease in 1980 at age 36.
Here's the text of Alvarado's letter:
Dear Ambassador Brinker:
Sometimes friends disagree. Disappointment is the only word that comes to mind as I learn that the leadership of the Susan B. Komen Foundation has taken the remarkably anti-woman stance against funding lifesaving breast cancer screenings for lowincome and underserved women who seek their well-woman care at Planned Parenthood centers across the nation.
This incredibly shortsided decision, based on what I can only imagine is the propaganda and threats of extremist groups, ends an amazing partnership that over the last five years has resulted in an incredible l70,000 breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals.
There is so much good that we can do if we all put our differences aside and work TOGETHER. Although you have now injected yourself into the political theater, I hope that you will reconsider your decision and work to mend this now torn relationship that used to be about preventing and protecting women from breast cancer.
With great disappointment,
Carol Alvarado
Texas State Representative
Rep. Alvarado is a tremendous champion of women's health issues. During the floor debate in the House last session over the sonogram bill, she wielded a trans-vaginal sonogram probe on the floor to show Republicans--especially the male Republicans championing the ultimate intrusion of a woman's privacy--what exactly they were mandating. It is great to see Alvarado reminding the Komen foundation that we all need to work together to fight women's cancers.
Meanwhile, over on Ezra Klein's blog on the Washington Post website, Sarah Kliff has an interesting interview with a volunteer at a Komen chapter in Connecticut. The volunteer expressed her frustration with this policy, especially since her chapter is still funding a grant to PP of Southern New England.
It must suck to be the volunteers in Komen chapters today who have been thrust into this ideological debate over abortion rather than allowed to remain focused on their mission of raising money to fight cancer. It's clear that the higher-ups in the Komen foundation -- especially their new VP, the rabidly anti-choice Karen Handel -- didn't think about the terrible real-world consequences of this decision, especially on their many pro-choice volunteers, supporters, and donors.
(Please welcome Texas Watch, an excellent consumer advocacy and citizen engagement organization. They recently released a jaw-dropping report on the SCOTX you need to know about. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
The Texas Supreme Court has a long history of favoring corporate defendants over families and small businesses, according to a decade-long review of the Court’s decision making by Court Watch, a project of the non-profit Texas Watch Foundation.
Court Watch reviewed the 624 cases involving consumers decided by the Court between 2000 and 2010. The report, “Thumbs on the Scale: A Retrospective of the Texas Supreme Court, 2000-2010,” finds that the state’s high court for civil matters “has marched in lock-step to consistently and overwhelmingly reward corporate defendants and the government at the expense of Texas families.”
“The Texas Supreme Court is an activist, results-oriented body that over the last 10 years has developed into a safe haven for corporate defendants at the expense of individuals, families, and small business owners,” said Alex Winslow, director of Court Watch. “The statistics speak for themselves. The court’s pro-defendant ideology can not be disputed.”
Among the report’s findings are:
Corporate and government defendants prevail in an average of 74% of cases annually.
Consumers have lost 79% of cases in which they were pitted against a corporate or government defendant.
These findings lead Court Watch to conclude: “The Texas Supreme Court has become a reliable friend to those who seek to escape the consequences of their actions; its justices are the ultimate guardians for the moneyed and powerful who wish to shirk responsibility.”
The report focuses on the decade beginning in 2000 because it reflects a paradigm shift. In 2000, Rick Perry became governor. His appointees to the Court have taken it in a decidedly activist and ideological turn.
Justices appointed to the Court by Governor Rick Perry have sided with consumers an average of just 29% of the time.
Despite a constitutional provision limiting its jurisdiction to questions of law – not fact – the Court has routinely overturned decisions made by local juries. Even Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson admonished the Court in a 2004 dissenting opinion, writing: “This Court is constitutionally bound to conduct only a legal – not factual – sufficiency review.”
Texas Supreme Court has overturned local jury decisions in consumer cases an average of 74% of the time since 2004.
Court Watch writes that “The jury is our smallest, most direct, and least corrupted form of government. … However, the Texas Supreme Court has displayed a fundamental disregard for juries.”
Court Watch has been monitoring and reporting on the Texas Supreme Court and the impact its decisions have on Texas families since 1996. During that time, Court Watch has issued an annual list of the most anti-consumer cases of a given year. In keeping with that tradition, this report includes a “Dirty Dozen of the Decade,” a representative sampling of the most dangerous, far-reaching decisions made by the Texas Supreme Court during the last decade.
Starting today, companies drilling for natural gas in Texas must disclose the chemical compounds they use for hydraulic fracturing on the website FracFocus. While this doesn’t apply to existing wells, any companies seeking new drilling permits from the Texas Railroad Commission must comply with the rule. This is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t address the real problems associated with fracking.
The slurry of water, sand, and chemicals which are forced at high pressure deep into shale formations in order to “crack” open the shale and release natural gas has been blamed for numerous health issues. Six counties in the Dallas area (which are on the Barnett Shale gas patch) have considerably higher rates of invasive breast cancer than the rest of the state. In a fracking zone near Midland, a mile long plume of hexavalent chromium (which is absurdly nasty stuff) was found in the ground water in 2009.
While the TRC’s new rules will help the public understand what is in fracking fluid, it will most likely not correct the public health concerns. Fracked wells are required to encase the bore holes in a concrete and steel from the surface down to a point where the well has “safely” crossed through the water table. At the extremely deep levels that these wells are operating, the wells do not have enough water pressure to pump all of the fracking fluid out of the well. In fact, a water treatment company, ProChem Tech, estimates that only 10-20% of water injected into the wells is recovered. Some of this water, which can come into contact with strontium and other radioactive compounds, is thought to migrate up through the earth’s crust, where it re-enters the ground water.
The vast amount of water required for fracking is perhaps even more disturbing given the historic drought in Texas. According to an EPA estimate, a single well pad (which can support up to 16 wells) can use over 80 million gallons of water a week. In La Salle county, 40% of the groundwater is used for fracking. That is an unconscionable amount of water in a state full of communities that are literally running out of water.
There are new techniques that might alleviate the massive use and contamination of water without jeopardizing gas production, but they are still far from being commonplace. An encouraging new procedure, gasfracking, uses liquified propane in place of the water/sand slurry. The liquified propane is supposedly better at extracting natural gas, and is less likely to mix with, and thereby pollute, groundwater. While this process is relatively common in Canada, it has only been used in a handful of wells in Texas. The capital investment cost in a gasfracked well is considerably higher than a traditional water well, but additional legislation could make it more attractive.
State Rep. Joe Deshotel (D) released a statement yesterday applauding the Railroad Commission’s new rule, but cautioned that the Legislature is ill-equipped to address the environmental concerns generated by our massive energy industry
Given that the Texas Legislature meets 140 days every other year, it may prove beneficial to hold interim joint committee hearings or charge a select committee with addressing more of these concerns. Such a format could cover recurring themes such as well integrity, groundwater contamination, water management, wastewater disposal and infrastructure planning.
Texas has taken the lead nationally by working with all parties in developing a model chemical disclosure procedure managed through the Texas Railroad Commission. Now the Legislature should build upon this success to address other public concerns.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate clearinghouse for the promotion of "model bills" that pad bottom lines of corporations at the public's expense. Over the last few months, Progress Texas has looked at ALEC and their influence on the Texas Legislature. Last week, our ongoing research culminated in the first of a series of reports detailing the influence of ALEC on Texas laws and lawmakers.
The report explains ALEC’s corporate agenda, outlines the money trail from ALEC corporate members to Texas lawmakers, and highlights how legislators take ALEC’s corporate-approved “model” bills and implements them in Texas. From 2001 to 2011, Texas lawmakers have received over $16.2 million from ALEC corporations, which is the second highest total among states. Rick Perry is the largest single recipient of ALEC-related funds nationwide, having received more than $2 million from ALEC corporate members from 2004-2011. The report also describes the cozy relationship between ALEC and the extreme right-wing group the Texas Public Policy Foundation, who regularly partners with ALEC to promote its corporate "model" bills here in Texas.
The Texas Legislature should be a laboratory for democracy, not a corporate clearinghouse for padding bottom lines at the public’s expense. ALEC Exposed in Texas shines light on the corporate lobbyists that craft cookie-cutter laws behind closed doors to put the profits of global corporations over creating better lives for Texans.
The 2012 Republican primary for U.S. Senate has begun.
There are four main candidates: Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, former Solicitor General Ted Cruz, and ESPN sports analyst Craig James. With the ongoing Texas district maps court battle, there has not been a primary date set yet. This week, however, the four candidates plan to debate at the Texas Association of Business's annual conference. It's not unsurprising that the candidates chose that venue for their first debate. They are all corporate robots with no core conviction other than "profits for my donors."
According to the most recent poll, Dewhurst has the support of 50 percent of Republican primary voters, followed by Leppert at 9 percent, Cruz at 5 percent and James at 3 percent. The race is starting slow, but there is already notable movement.
Fundraising
This Tuesday, Tom Leppert announced that he put in another $500,000 of his money on top of the $2.6 million he had previously loaned to his campaign. With the $387,000 he brought in during the last quarter, he now has about $3.5 million to spend.
Dewhurst has brought in $6.1 million, a third of which is his own money.
Cruz took in $1.1 million in the last quarter, bringing his total to more than $4 million.
Tax Returns
On Thursday, Craig James, who entered the race in the last few weeks, released his tax returns and called for the other candidates to do the same. James' showed an adjusted income of $257,000 in 2010 and $1.1 million in 2009.
On Friday, David Dewhurst released his returns, which showed that his investments exceeded $225 million in 2010.
This week, Leppert released his returns, which showed adjusted gross income of $1.5 million in 2008, $1.28 million in 2009 and $443,194 in 2010. In all three years, he paid effective tax rates of more than 21 percent.
Cruz reported an adjusted gross income of more than $2 million in 2010.
This primary is a primary of the 1% doing battle for who gets to represent the 1% in the Senate.
The spectre of Mitt Romney paying less than 14 percent in income taxes has horrified so many Americans that Republicans are trying their hardest to seem less sleazy than their frontrunning presidential standard-bearer. That's good news - and evidence that the Occupy movement is bringing income inequality into the national debate.
Overview
This primary race is playing out like every other Republican contest in America: a rhetorical battle for the mantle of "most conservative." Each candidate is advocating against essentials like the environment, strong public education, and reproductive rights, while advocating corporatist government policies. These are not unique candidates; they are four examples of what is so wrong with the Republican Party today. They are not here to represent Texans, they are here to represent the industry interests who pay them.
Hopefully in the general election, a majority of Texas voters will vote against any one of these corporate shills.
Read Glen Maxey's tell-all about his quest to uncover the truth about Rick Perry.
Now available in paperback!
The Perry Compendium
Know the truth about Rick Perry's record of failure.
--On The Issues: Rick Perry's positions on the issues that matter.
--In Our Archives: A growing list of everything we've written about Rick Perry.
--On Perry's Trail: Regular coverage of campaign stops, quotes, and coverage.
--Everything Else: Lists, links, and archives from across Texas.
Thanks to a ruling from the 5th Circuit and a request from Greg Abbot to expedite enforcement, Texas' wildly invasive sonogram law is going into effect. Women seeking abortions will be subject to a mandatory ultrasound and forced to look at the sonogram image, and their doctor will be required to read a bunch of medically unnecessary information about fetal development or risk losing their medical license. For women who are 
In an effort to get our work out to a wider audience, Burnt Orange Report recently partnered with Politics in Stereo to start linking our posts to their site. 
Rep. Alvarado is a tremendous champion of women's health issues. During the floor debate in the House last session over the sonogram bill, she wielded a trans-vaginal sonogram probe on the floor to show Republicans--especially the male Republicans championing the ultimate intrusion of a woman's privacy--what exactly they were mandating. It is great to see Alvarado reminding the Komen foundation that we all need to work together to fight women's cancers.
