Burnt Orange Report

Update on the Pending KBH Announcement

By Byron LaMasters

Earlier today I posted that news had been leaked that KBH will be announcing for Governor next week. A personal source of mine in the media has also confirmed that KBH will be in Austin for a press conference next week most likely related to her 2006 intentions and likely run for governor.

The Dallas Morning News editorial board blog also pegs their "Hutch-O-Meter" as maxed out at a 100% chance that KBH runs for governor. Also on the DMN blog is an email from a reader who claims to have spoken to several Republican judges in Dallas county. The reader claimed that those unnamed judges were "eager" to see KBH at the top of the 2006 ticket. I don't know the validity of the source, but it is not a surprise to me. KBH will likely win Dallas County in 2006 if she is either the Senate or Governor nominee. On the other hand, I doubt that Rick Perry will win Dallas County if he is the Republican nominee for governor next year.

Challenge to Keel and Kinky Thoughts

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Kuff reports that the first person to state their intentino to run against Republican Rep. Todd Baxter here in Austin (who narrowly beat Kelly White last fall) is Austin Attorney Andy Brown.

Andy Brown, an attorney at DLA Piper, announced his candidacy today in the Democratic Primary for State Representative in District 48. Mr. Brown brings effective public service, legislative experience and community volunteer leadership to the race.

"I intend to provide the kind of leadership on health care, public education and ethics that Travis County residents expect. We owe a debt of gratitude to Kelly White and Ann Kitchen for their enormous efforts to provide balanced and effective representation in the Texas House. District 48 deserves a new voice."

Also in the ring for the Democratic primary for that seak is Hugh Brady. From Qurom Report...

Add Hugh Brady's name to the likely contenders in the Democratic primary seeking to challenge Austin Republican state Rep. Todd Baxter. Brady is a former staffer for state Rep. Glenn Maxey. He is an attorney with the Fitzwater Firm and one of his clients is the House Democratic Caucus. Brady is also the editor of Texas House Practice, a guide book to Texas House procedures.

I'm curious as to whether former Rep. Maxey had a hand in getting him to run, being that Maxey is well known as the Lege's only openly gay representative before stepping down after his district changed. Baxter has a big target on his back thanks to LGRL. I look forward to this seat being taken next round, and now if someone would step up to challenge Rep. Keel as well, then there would be a chance to sweep all of Travis County's 6 house seats for Democrats (though Keel's seat is the most Republican to my knowledge).

Oh, and Kuff reports on some thoughts on the effects of Kinky Friedman for Governor. I need some more time before I have any.

Deep Throat Revealed!

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

It's W. Mark Felt. We think. Maybe. For now.

Update: It's him, WaPo and W&B confim it. Read.

Previously.... Most news outlets are putting it somewhere between top news story to something a couple notches down. The main reason being it is Mr. Felt that has said it is him, rather than the Washington Post or Woodward and Berstein. From the MSNBC story..

In 2003, Woodward and Bernstein reached an agreement to keep their Watergate papers at the University of Texas at Austin.

At the time, the pair said documents naming “Deep Throat” would be kept secure at an undisclosed location in Washington until the source’s death.

Bernstein issued a statement neither denying nor confirming Felt's claim. Bernstein stated he and Woodward would be keeping their pledge to reveal the source only once that person dies.

The Washington Post had no immediate comment on the report.

Who was the real Deep Throat was long a source of speculation and rumor.

Among those named over the years as Deep Throat were Assistant Attorney General Henry Peterson, deputy White House counsel Fred Fielding, and even ABC newswoman Diane Sawyer, who then worked in the White House press office. Ron Zeigler, Nixon’s press secretary, White House aide Steven Bull, speechwriters Ray Price and Pat Buchanan, and John Dean, the White House counsel who warned Nixon of “a cancer growing on the presidency,” also were considered candidates.

And some theorized Deep Throat wasn’t a single source at all but a composite figure.

The last time there was a flurry of focus on Felt was in 1999, when a high school senior in New York claimed that Bernstein's son let the secret slip at a summer camp.

At the time, Felt denied he was the man.

“I would have done better,” Felt told The Hartford Courant. “I would have been more effective. Deep Throat didn’t exactly bring the White House crashing down, did he?”

So is it him? Is this the finale, or do we have to wait a few more years once again? Your thoughts?

KBH To Declare for Governor?

By Byron LaMasters

Breaking news via RedState.org. According to their source, KBH will declare for Governor "on or about June 6th". Very interesting if it is true...

Let the bloodbath begin...

Update: Via comments, State Rep. Aaron Pena wrote on his blog that he was hearing similar news last week.

Republican Legislators Unable to Say the "P" Word

By Andrew Dobbs

It seems that since the early 1990s a certain word has left the lips of politicians across this country-- the word "poor". There was a time when poor folks knew that there was a concerted effort to improve their lives. A shifting focus to the middle class has hurt that effort nationally, but thankfully Texas Democrats continue to stand up for the poor (a necessity in one of the poorest states in the entire country). Unfortunately, Republicans have continued to use the poor as their personal ATM-- robbing them of their needed services and their tax dollars in order to pay for their boondoggles for the rich. The DMN spells out a few examples of last minute attacks on the poor.

Lawmakers were able to balance the next two-year state budget with some last-minute maneuvers, but some Democrats complained that poor Texans took a hit in the process.

The Legislature diverted a fund that helped offset electric bills for the poor and opted not to change eligibility checks for the Children's Health Insurance Program to once a year instead of once every six months. The change would have been the best hope for giving health care back to thousands of poor children.

Also, lawmakers once again extended a 1.25 percent tax on telephone service. The tax was to have expired two years ago. (...)

House Speaker Pro Tem Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, was especially upset about losing the 10-percent electricity discount for the poor. About 120,000 of them are served by TXU. Electricity customers in most of the state will continue a tax for the "system benefit fund," but it'll be spent on other programs.

Mr. Turner threatened late Sunday to retaliate by derailing a bill to raise $1.2 billion with higher fees and minor changes to health programs. The measure was crucial to balancing the budget, and Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, rebuffed Mr. Turner's parliamentary maneuver.

The electricity fund also was raided in 2003 to help plug a $10 billion budget shortfall. Lawmakers siphoned enough to reduce the number of eligible households from 750,000 to 350,000, Mr. Turner said.

"Many of them happen to be seniors," he said.

To be eligible, a household's income can't exceed 125 percent of the federal poverty level ­ about $12,000 for a single person, $16,000 for a couple. Through 2007, no one will get a discount.

In CHIP, the state-federal program for youngsters in working-poor households, some experts believe a shift two years ago to eligibility checks every six months contributed more than other cuts to 180,000 children being removed from the rolls. (...)

So 350,000 poor Texans will see an 11% increase in their electric bills, and poor and middle class Texans whose kids depended on CHIP for health care before 2003 who were promised restorations in that session's cuts were disappointed, despite bipartisan efforts to fix to fix the program. Texans who expected a cut in their telephone bill two years ago will have to wait at least two more years to get that relief. Now, whenever Democrats vote for or support a smaller tax cut or a delay of a tax cut than what Republicans want the Republicans call it a "tax increase." Following their own logic, Republicans have supported a tax increase for the last two sessions running.

Poor folks were the punching bag for frustrated Republicans all session. When they needed cash to make up for their proposed (and ultimately, failed) school finance/tax restructuring plan, they raised taxes on poor and middle class Texans. The less you made, the larger the tax increase so the Republican plan would have raised taxes a staggering 5-6%. And poor schools would have seen less money under the "equity" proposals than wealthy schools-- not just in dollars, but in percentage increase. This session could have been a disaster for the poor, but since the Republicans failed miserably in virtually all of their efforts they ended up coming out just beaten and not bludgeoned to death.

The fact of the matter is that the best reason I can find to be a Democrat is that when the cards are down we are for poor folks and the other guys are for rich folks. Being for rich folks means you would rather help out people who don't need any help than help out people who are struggling just to survive. And when you help out poor folks it helps out middle class folks (who are typically one disaster away from abject poverty) and even rich folks (whose prosperity is undermined by the instability a large underclass brings with it). This session proved once and for all that the Democrats are the party of working people and the Republicans the party of the idle rich. Republicans are in trouble now because no one likes a bully and that is exactly what they presented themselves as to the poor here in Texas.

Editorial Boards Across the State Hammer the Lege

By Byron LaMasters

Since I enjoyed adding my snarky asides in compiling the news reports about the end of the "Do Nothing" Texas legislature below, let's take a look at what the newspaper editorial boards had to say:

I'll start with my favorite newspaper in the state, the conservative Dallas Morning News:

Lackluster Finish: Legislature didn't come close on school finance

By now, you probably know that the Texas Legislature wrapped up its 2005 session without finding a solution to the state's school funding crisis. But the reality was that the debate over the school-funding bill was meaningless weeks ago. Neither the House nor the Senate ever came close to putting enough funds into Texas schools. And it's best now that the Texas Supreme Court take over this matter. It's clear the Legislature doesn't want to handle it well.

From the beginning of the session, most of the Republicans who run Austin did not want to raise the taxes necessary to adequately fund schools. They instead took care of their party's base, which doesn't look kindly on any kind of tax hike.

Republicans attended to their base throughout this session. They hupped-to on issues that matter to cultural conservatives, like banning gay marriage. Cultural conservatives and anti-tax folks vote, so party leaders weren't going to disappoint either.

On the harder task of making government work, legislators struggled. Protecting children and the elderly. Managing water resources and combating pollution. Reauthorizing state agencies. Opening government to the public. Overhauling the workers' compensation system. They were all battle zones until the end. The session boasted only a few pieces of major legislation that moved through with some measure of consensus – for example, the state budget and laws governing asbestos suits.

The DMN states the obvious. Republicans are great when they can hyperventilate about taxes, and throw red meat to their base when they are in the minority. When they actually have to govern, Republicans are immediately torn. Do they continue to cater to their base? Or do they actually solve the state's problems? Republicans in the Texas lege clearly took the former (although the budget was a 19% increase from 2003). Most interestingly, the DMN calls for the Texas Supreme Court to take over the matter. Apparently, they feel that the GOP-legislature is so inept and incompetent that the only solution is judicial activism. Wow.

The San Antonio Express-News has similar thoughts:

Editorial: Lawmakers once again let down schoolchildren

Texas lawmakers once again have failed the state's children miserably because they couldn't reach an agreement on overhauling the school finance system.

As legislative leaders declared that efforts to increase public school funding and revamp the system were dead, the blame game was under way in the Capitol at NASCAR speeds.

Regardless of who is to blame, the bottom line is that the Legislature failed in the midst of a crisis.

A district court judge has ruled that the system of public school finance is unconstitutional. The Texas Supreme Court is scheduled to review the case in July.

Many school districts are slashing budgets because they already have reached local property tax caps and state funding is not keeping up with growth and inflation.

After lawmakers failed in a 2004 special session on school finance, Gov. Rick Perry declared the issue an emergency during this year's regular session.

In the late hours of the session, Perry and Senate negotiators believed they had an agreement with House leaders, but Speaker Tom Craddick rejected the deal. House members blamed the Senate for acting too slowly.

Barring a successful special session, Texas students will lack adequate support for another school year because of lawmakers' embarrassing failure. Voters should keep that in mind next year.

The Austin American Statesmen:

[A] lesson from this session: Never mind bipartisanship. The Republicans can't even manage a partnership with one another.

House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, proved again that he is not a go-along-to-get-along kind of guy. He has achieved a reputation as the toughest negotiator in state government. But that's misleading, because negotiators, by definition, compromise to get things done. Craddick, a 36-year veteran of the House, doesn't necessarily want government to get things done.

Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, both Republicans, proved they have little influence over Craddick. In last-minute talks, House negotiators apparently agreed to a compromise on school finance legislation. But Craddick rejected it, and the plan died.

My favorite editorial? The Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I normally do not post full-length articles, but this editorial deserves to be read in its entirety. Enjoy:

Give 'em an F

When the going got tough this year on the all-important issue of school finance, the Texas Legislature and its leaders couldn't produce what was asked of them.

No excuses, no amount of "we gave it our best" or "this is a very difficult thing to do" will change that.

All of these people, from Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick on down, were elected and sent to Austin with one of their principle assignments being to fix the school funding system.

They failed.

Equally, no amount of casting blame will change this discouraging reality.

But something has to change, because the way that Texas pays for public schools does not meet the needs of its children today and will be disastrously insufficient to educate the increasingly diverse and more difficult to teach children of tomorrow.

The Legislature has been preparing to confront the school finance problem for at least four years, with interim studies, special committees, expensive scholarly reports, advice from experts and even a 30-day special session last year all leading up to the effort to finally address the problem this year.

As if any more incentive were needed, an Austin judge heard weeks of testimony in a lawsuit brought by school districts and in late November ruled that the current school finance system is inadequate and unconstitutional.

State District Judge John Dietz ordered that the school funding system be shut down if the Legislature couldn't come up with a better plan by October. The Texas Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on an appeal of the case July 6.

What went wrong?

This is Texas, and talking about school funding means talking about taxes. Ideology, greed and ego got in the way.

Ideology transformed the effort to reshape school funding into an attempt to redesign the state's tax structure and reduce local property taxes. That turned an already difficult task into a nearly impossible one.

Still, it could have been done, but these legislators and their leaders couldn't do it.

Greed converted the deliberations into thinly veiled attempts to shuffle more money to specific interest groups or protect the money held by others.

Under Craddick's leadership, the House sought special treatment for wealthy school districts and pushed a regressive sales tax increase in order to preserve tax breaks for some businesses. The Senate under Dewhurst's leadership came up with more equitable plans but was not politically or philosophically crafty enough to handle unbending House negotiators -- or Craddick himself -- when it came time to merge differing proposals.

Ego -- or maybe just the temerity that comes from standing on uncertain political ground with next year's election in sight -- kept Perry from exercising the power of his office to move deliberations to a successful conclusion.

Perry has said that he worked decisively and consistently in the background with key legislative leaders. If so, there is little to show for it.

The education reform and school finance bills that were produced during this legislative session, their high points and their low points, will be and should be dissected and studied by interested parties in the coming weeks and probably will be debated in coming political campaigns.

Perhaps they will serve as starting points in the next effort to resolve this pressing problem.

That's good, but after years of looking to the Legislature for help, Texas public schools and the people who are dedicated to educating the state's children are left with a still-uncertain future.

This Legislature, and these state leaders, could not show results.

Texas cannot, and must not, settle for that.

The "Do Nothing" Legislature

By Byron LaMasters

It's certainly ironic that in the first session following an election where Republicans achieved complete power with majorities in Congress, the state Senate, the State House, and a lock on all Texas Constitutional offices - they are unable to accomplish much of anything. Newspapers across the state report...

The Austin American Statesman:

One hundred forty days ago, Texas lawmakers came to Austin promising to find a fair and legal way to pay for public education and to lower school property taxes.

During the next five months, they passed a two-year state budget that's more than 10 percent larger than the current budget. They garnered national attention by trying to ban sexy cheerleading in high schools. And they sent 1,370 bills to Gov. Rick Perry, including overhauls of the state's workers' compensation and Child Protective Services systems. [...]

As lawmakers left town late Monday, the question of how to pay for public schools and ease the burden on property owners remained unanswered. And that inaction by the Republican-controlled Legislature may well be the enduring legacy of the 79th Legislature.

The failure of a school finance plan is the failure of one party, and one party alone. We can thank Tom Craddick for that.

Craddick this month kept Democrats off the conference committees that negotiated school finance reform. And, earlier in the session, House Democrats, with a lone Republican, tried to bypass a committee vote and force a vote by the full House to further limit corporate money in elections. GOP groups are accused of misusing corporate dollars in 2002.

But House Republicans — even those who had co-sponsored the measure — shot it down, saying Democrats needed to respect the usual legislative process. (That process killed it in committee a few days later.)

The Dallas Morning News:

Texas lawmakers closed out a disappointing regular session and headed home Monday, touting a few notable accomplishments but leaving their No. 1 priority – the funding of public schools – in the dust. [...]

"I can't tell you how angry I am," said Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas. "My constituents were expecting school finance reform, property tax reform and Robin Hood reform – and we couldn't deliver on any of it."

It didn't help that the leaders of the two chambers – Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick – were sharply at odds over their respective plans and who's to blame. [...]

The session will be judged by the major issues not addressed, said Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, the House Democratic leader.

"We came in with a landmark opportunity to fix our schools, and that was not accomplished," he said. "The major pieces of policy that we should have taken care of were not taken care of."

The San Antonio Express-News covers the GOP spin:

"This has been a very successful session," Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said. "We've had a lot of important legislation pass."

Dewhurst said "we're not giving up" on school finance, adding that he'd talked with House Speaker Tom Craddick on Monday despite their differences on the issue.

Craddick, who also judged the session a success, agreed that he and Dewhurst "said we're going to try to work together and see if we can find some kind of resolution" on school finance. [...]

Even before the session ended, Perry was touting lawmakers' work trying to reach agreement on schools and noting other legislative accomplishments.

"I don't know how big the mountain's got to be before we say, 'Heck of a session.' But we're real close to it," Perry said in the session's closing days as he announced agreement on workers' compensation and noted restrictions on asbestos lawsuits.

What a load of crap. Sen. Wentworth, for one, isn't buying it:

Even before the session ended, Perry was touting lawmakers' work trying to reach agreement on schools and noting other legislative accomplishments.

"I don't know how big the mountain's got to be before we say, 'Heck of a session.' But we're real close to it," Perry said in the session's closing days as he announced agreement on workers' compensation and noted restrictions on asbestos lawsuits.

And finally, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

One hundred and forty days of raucous politics came to an end Monday, the last day of a Texas legislative session that will probably be remembered as much for what failed as what passed.

Lying in the recycle bin were thousands of pages of what might have been: a new school finance system, a property tax cut, legalized slot machines, an overhaul of ethics laws, private school vouchers and the Willie Nelson Highway. [...]

"It's all over but the explaining," said Ross Ramsey, editor of the political newsletter Texas Weekly. "On the biggest issue of the session, they're going home empty-handed."

Tarrant County Republican Chair clarifies the priorities of of the "conservative movement":

Perry is wasting no time getting the message to conservative Republican voters that he has delivered. The governor has scheduled an event next weekend at Calvary Cathedral in Fort Worth, where he plans to sign legislation requiring minor girls to have written parental consent before they can get an abortion. He'll also sign a constitutional amendment -- it's just a formality, because only the voters can make it law -- designed to place an existing ban on gay marriage in the state constitution.

Voters will decide on the prohibition in November.

According to a letter sent by Perry's campaign, and forwarded by e-mail to supporters, Perry officials "want to completely fill this location with pro-family Christian friends who can celebrate with us" and might film the event for TV advertising later.

Pat Carlson, chairwoman of the Tarrant County Republican Party, said that if Hutchison runs against Perry, "it's very possible" that footage from the event would be used.

Carlson called the recently concluded meeting "not the best session, but not a bad session" and said that conservatives cared more about the abortion issue than changing the state's school finance system.

"School finance wasn't necessarily a priority of the conservative movement," Carlson said.

Ok, I think I get it. Gays = NO! Abortion = NO! KIDS, uhmmm = NO WAY! At least someone is honest about the priorities of the "conservative movement". As long as the gays and abortionists are stopped, who cares about the kids?

End of Session Notes

By Byron LaMasters

State Rep. Aaron Pena (D) has some end of session notes over at his blog.

Of interest...

• Pena predicts that a special session will be called near the end of June.


• The Mexican-American Legislative Caucus picked Veronica Gonzalez and Rafael Anchia Freshmen of the Year.


• The Democratic Caucus picked Yvonne Gonzalez-Tourilles and Marc Veasey for Freshmen of the Year.


• The Legislative Study Group picked Hubert Vo their Freshman of the Year.


• Melissa Noriega was given the "Joe Moreno Award" by the Democratic Caucus.


• Rep. Rafael Anchia honored the late Rep. Joe Moreno by wearing a Houston Rockets jersey on the floor of the House.

In other news, via email, the Texas Legislative Black Caucus elected new officers:

Chair -- Representative Senfronia Thompson, Houston
1st Vice Chair -- Representative Terri Hodge, Dallas
2nd Vice Chair -- Representative Ruth Jones McClendon, San Antonio
Treasurer -- Representative Marc Veasey, Fort Worth
Secretary -- Representative Dawnna Dukes, Austin
Parliamentarian -- Representative Jesse Jones, Dallas
Legal Council -- Representative Joe Deshotel, Beaumont

No DINO's on this list... A special thanks for the leadership of the outgoing chair Garnet Coleman, and he certainly leaves the caucus in good hands with Senfronia Thompson.

Our Dumb Legislature

By Jim Dallas

Majikthise picks up an interesting note:

Silly legislators, everything is necessarily self-identical:

Jonathan Ichikawa writes:

Here is the full text of the newly proposed section of Article I of the Texas Constitution, proposed by HJR 6, which has been passed by both chambers:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Well, yes, everything is self-identical. Nonetheless, though, this is one of those situations where a court would probably just sort of laugh and point to the clear legislative intent, viz., spiting them danged homos. And we all know there's nothing wrong or controversial with that!

Meanwhile, Our Dumb Legislature^TM continues to kill progress dead on the education front. As Kuff notes, school finance and tax reform is pretty much over with for this session, which ends in, oh, something like 48 hours. Would thirty more days help? Need we ask?

Remember now, this was the third attempt. The Senate took a shot at it in 2003 by unanimously passing a tax reform bill. The House and Governor Perry immediately pissed on it, and it was never spoken of again. (Anyone else think the bad blood this session between David Dewhurst and Tom Craddick can be traced back to that?) Perry called a special session in 2004, which petered out before the 30-day deadline having accomplished nothing other than the House voting 126-0 against a plan he himself put forward. And now this, thanks in part to Perry's special brand of leadership. I know this sort of thing is hard, but how much time and how many chances do you get before you're branded an abject failure?

Now here's a radical idea folks: why don't we just follow the advice of crazy hippies like Ivan Illich (rest in peace), and make school optional? After all, our fine role models in the House and Senate are sending a strong message to children that education really isn't that important anyways.

Update: Turns out my day-counting skills were off. I thought the Session ended on Tuesday. Kuff says it's practically already over. The House Web site says they've recessed for lunch and will start anew at 2:30; but nonetheless, they've got to finish by midnight. Unless I slept longer than I thought, I was wrong.

Gay Foster Care Ban Stripped From CPS Bill

By Byron LaMasters

The Houston Chronicle reports:

House and Senate negotiators agreed Friday to overhaul Texas' troubled child protection agency by slashing investigative caseloads and relying more on private contractors. es at the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. [...]

Conferees removed from the final version a House amendment that would have banned gay foster parents. [...]

Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, who authored the amendment to ban gay foster parents, refused to sign the compromise.

"The bill was about child protective services and adult protective services. I certainly didn't want it to get sidetracked on an entirely different issue that was very volatile," said House sponsor Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, R-Lampasas.

Hupp said she is "mildly concerned" that Talton might try to sway conservative members against the bill, but she predicted such an attempt would not succeed.

"I believe (House members) will see the greater issue at hand, which is the reformation of those agencies," she said.

With this victory, it's never too early to look ahead towards 2006. The Austin Chronicle reports:

Gay rights advocates predict a victory at the ballot box in 2006 – even if Texans approve a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages this year. The reason? Political and social activists will pull out all stops to ensure that certain lawmakers receive a thorough drubbing at the polls next year, said Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas.

The targeted lawmakers were already on shaky ground before voting to place the divisive gay marriage question on the Nov. 8 ballot. For example, Austin Rep. Todd Baxter angered constituents early in the session with his vote for a roundly hated school finance bill, just four months after narrowly surviving a re-election bid in his West Austin swing district. [...]

The Democrats' political hit list for 2006 mainly focuses on the House side, where Baxter and Houston Republicans Martha Wong and Joe Nixon are viewed as the most vulnerable. Wong's district takes in a portion of Houston's gay community in Montrose; she is said to be eyeing a state senate seat in a more conservative district, but that depends on whether the incumbent, Kyle Janek, steps aside to seek U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's seat, who may or may not run for governor next year.

There are other House members at risk. Democratic Party strategist Kelly Fero points to a few seemingly sacred cows – Public Education Chairman Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, and chief homophobes Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, and Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, who is the lead sponsor of the same-sex marriage prohibition. Fero said Talton and Chisum are both susceptible – "not because the numbers on paper demonstrate their vulnerability, but because their arrogance and intolerance have become an embarrassment."

Some interesting gossip here. This is the first time I've heard that Kyle Janek is considering a run for U.S. Senate. In terms of targeting, Wong and Baxter are in the obvious first tier of most any Democratic target list. Nixon, Talton and Grusendorf are a bit further down the list (and Chisum a lot further down the list), but I would certainly like to see all of the above be challenged by a strong, well-funded Democrat.

Run-off Notes

By Byron LaMasters

Kuff, The Jeffersonian and San Antonio Election 2005 report on the latest from San Antonio. Third place finisher Carroll Schubert endorsed Phil Hardberger in the mayoral run-off.

In the Austin City Council Place 3 run-off, Margot Clarke has racked up some union support that went to Gregg Knauppe in round one. They include the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 520, the Central Texas Building Trades Council and the Sheetmetal Workers Local 67.

Justifying Abortion

By Jim Dallas

Nathan Newman has a post on the rhetoric of abortion which ought to provoke considerable thought about the first principles of the pro-choice movement.

As an aside, the "pro-choice" moniker was adopted in large part to put the focus on the libertarian rhetoric Newman criticizes. So I think there's very little doubt that Newman has at least correctly identified the dominant mode of anti-prohibitionist rhetoric, viz., that abortion is not good, but criminalization is and would be bad (or worse). Newman cites Howard Dean's statement last Sunday as Exhibit A:

I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing. I don't know anybody in either party who is pro-abortion. The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good thing. The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care

For what it's worth, I'm going to make a few remarks defending the libertarian perspective against Newman's critique.

First, I take issue at Newman's claim that the pro-choice perspective is amoral:

Abortion is not just some individual decision with no effects on broader society. That kind of rhetoric is a copout that is unconvincing. Allowing abortion is critical to equality for women and whether unwanted children are forced on parents is bound to have effects not just on those families but on our communities. Most abortion rights activists have not been libertarians who thought individual choices have no effect on broader society, but people who thought the availability of abortion causes profound and needed changes in that broader society: increasing women's ability to participate equally in the workplace, changing power relations between men and women within the family, and encouraging family planning so that children were wanted and not abused.

This is not to say that abortion does not raise moral dilemmas or should be encouraged indiscriminately, but those in favor of abortion rights have to argue that, overall, we have a better society because abortion is legal than if abortion was criminalized.

Abortion politics should not be a choice between moral injunctions from the rightwing and amoral libertarian platitudes from the pro-choice side. It should be a choice between two visions of creating a good society, with progressives arguing that their vision is the more profoundingly just and moral alternative.

I'd argue in response that there is a strong moral position in defending the autonomy and dignity of women, and that is precisely what the "amoral libetarian platitudes" of the keep-your-laws-off-my-body crowd amount to. Indeed, I'd argue that such strong claims are necessary to respond to the equally moralistic injunctions of the save-the-zygotes posse. When the other side is comparing you to Hitler and claiming that abortion is the worst moral crisis since slavery and the Holocaust, you really can't respond with blunt utilitarian claims about crime and the economy.

Of course, it would be unfair of me to characterize Newman's critique as being only that; clearly, Nathan Newman does have profound respect for womens' rights and their equal participation in society.

Let me draw an analogy. I was having a discussion with another law student yesterday about the death penalty, which she opposes strongly and I am, at best, lukewarm about (more against than for, but definitely mixed). In this discussion, she pointed to the well-documented disproporitionately large number of black men on death row and the inherent racism which can, and should, be logically inferred from this.

My argument, however, was that disparate impact is, quite frankly, a "racism problem", not a capital punishment problem per se.

Here's the analogy - if women need abortions to be equal in society, then I'd suggest we've got a much bigger sexism problem to deal with. Now, I suppose it could be argued that this isn't comparable - women have a monopoly on the baby business, and certainly there is considerable strain placed on women individually and as a class because of this. That said, I am still not convinced that abortion is the "great equalizer", and even if it were that this would be a per se justification for legal abortion by itself.

The libertarian position, however, affords an opportunity to subtly shoe-horn these concerns into an argument without really claiming they make all abortions A-OK. That is, in discussing personal autonomy, the issue of compassion towards women generally has to be discussed. The right-wing groups like Focus on the Fetus, err, Family has spent years attempting to humanize a clump of cells and dehumanize adult women as criminals.

A final issue I'd like to address is the issue of selectivity. The libertarian position, of course, does not claim that abortion is a "good thing." But that is not the same as claiming that all abortions are unjustified. Indeed, when Newman asks, "if abortion is never a good thing, then why should anyone have the option to have one," he is touching on this, albeit in a way which misses the subtle distinction between characterizing abortion generally and some abortions specifically.

For example, "war" is not a good thing and very few people hanker for Four More Wars. Yet, almost everybody aside from a few absolute-pacifists can think of a war that was worth fighting.

Certainly, conceding ground in cases where abortions are not justified but merely rationalized on some abstract principle is not exactly a good opening move. But in the larger picture, it may be a better way to piece together a pro-choice majority than trying to argue abortion is not a sin needing justification whatsoever.

At the very least, I think what Newman is proposing is a very long-term project, moving public opinion at a glacial pace. Given the fact that pro-criminalization politicians and activist-judicial nominees stand ready to crush reproductive rights at virtually any moment, I'm not sure it's a practical proposal.

All your media are belong to Chris Bell

By Jim Dallas

We get letters:

Just a quick note to let you know that Chris Bell is going on the FOX News Live Weekend to talk about stem cell research. As some of you know, Chris has recast the stem cell research debate more a morals perspective and wrote a column about it that is posted here on his website. Chris will be on the Fox News Channel Saturday around 1:20 p.m. Texas time.

Also, the national AP wire just moved a story about the endless KBH question, but Chris is quoted saying something smart, so we like the article. Read it here.

Finally, the DeLay lawsuit has some impact on the House Ethics Committee’s reaction to the Chris Bell complaint. R.G. Ratcliffe picked up on that angle here.

I don't own a television, but for those that do, there you go.

District 143 Special Election Day Set

By Jim Dallas

November 8.

Play Dirty, Pay Big

By Andrea Meyer

State District Judge Joe Hart has ruled that Texans for a Republican Majority must now pay up to the tune of $196,660 in damages to five Democrats who lost their races as a result of over a half-million dollars in illegal campaign money funneled to Republican opponents. The recipients include Ann Kitchen, who lost her race to Todd Baxter after both being redistricted and falling victim to the filthy politics practiced by the Republicans. Her award comes to over $87,000. Although we lost an intelligent, capable representative to an individual such as Baxter, who couldn't even campaign by himself, I'm glad that there is some justice that hits Republicans where it strikes at their hearts, aka their wallets.

Here is the TCDP's site, and they provide a link to the Statesman and a full story.

State House Freshmen of the Year Named

By Byron LaMasters

Aaron Pena breaks the news:

Before the membership learns the identities of the "Freshmen of the Year" I will take the liberty (with Yoda's blessing) of breaking the news to the readers of this journal who the winners are. There were a number of top notch members in the running. John Otto (R) and Armando Martinez (D) are the recipients.

Best wishes to all the Freshmen class who have done a fine job this session.

Austin Early Voting Starts Today

By Byron LaMasters

Today is the first day to vote in the Austin City Council Place 3 run-off between Margot Clarke and Jennifer Kim.

Early vote locations here.

I voted just about an hour ago, and I think I'll just keep yall guessing as to who I voted for. I do not intend to issue a personal endorsement in this race. I am a member of four local clubs. Of them, the Central Austin Democrats, Austin Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus and the Austin Stonewall Democrats have endorsed Margot Clarke. The University Democrats have endorsed Jennifer Kim.

"Killing Nine Lives to Create One"

By Byron LaMasters

It's nice to see a pro-life Democrat point out the sheer lunacy and hypocrisy of the arguments of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research. Since half of embryos of potential "snowflake babies" do not survive the "thawing" process, a consistent pro-lifer would argue that such process constituted "destruction of a human life in order to save a human life". Hmmm... that sounds familiar.

For pro-lifers conflicted on embryonic stem cell research, read this post on Greg's Opinion.

San Antonio Run-off a Squeaker in Survey USA Poll

By Byron LaMasters

I heard rumors earlier this week that Hardberger had taken a large lead in the polls in the San Antonio mayoral run-off race, which surprised me a little bit, but not too much. The vast majority of Shubert voters are likely to vote for Hardberger or stay home. In the end, this race will come down to turnout above all else. Survey USA has posted a poll showing an extremely close race within the margin of error:

San Antonio Mayor Runoff
5/24/2005

Hardberger - 50%
Castro - 47%
Undecided - 2%

Data Collected: 5/21/05 - 5/23/05
Geography: City of San Antonio
Sample Population: 447 Likely Voters
Margin of Error: 4.7%
Client: WOAI-TV San Antonio

Update: Analysis at The Red State, The Jeffersonian and Kuff.

A Brief Note

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I havn't been online in 5 days so anyone trying to contact me, that's why. But I find it really sad that when I do make it on, I find that 3 Senate Democrats were traitors on HJR 6. Especially after you pledge to keep it off the ballot (because we all know how smart the voters of Texas are) and thus the books. To you Senators Lucio and Madla in particular, the next time legislation comes up that strikes at the heart of your Hispanic contituants, someone please remind me not to give a damn and sell myself out for some other shitty two-bit piece of legislation.

To the 8 of you who voted against it, just like you did against DOMA, thank you. But next time (like there are any more next times except maybe the demonization of gay foster parents or rounding us up and registering us) please be aware you can't trust the word of certain Senators that claim to stand up for minority rights.

Things are okay here in Fredericksburg otherwise, the councilman is hard at work (though you Austinites may get to see him in July for a DFA MeetUp if things pan out).

And now, I need to respond to a certain candidate that is mulling a bid against Lamar Smith for 2006 (who has been mentioned around the comments). I'm excited and will report soon; I'll be back in Austin this Sunday for the summer.

Forcing the Veto on Stem Cell Research

By Byron LaMasters

Good news from the U.S. House:

Ignoring President Bush's veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to loosen limits on embryonic stem cell research, approving a measure supporters said could speed cures for diseases but opponents viewed as akin to abortion.

Bush called the bill a mistake and said he would veto it. The House approved it by a 238-194 vote, well short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.

The bill has the votes in the senate, and when it passes the senate, the bill will force a veto. It's a shame that countries like South Korea will be taking the lead on the issue of embryonic stem cell research, but hopefully other states will follow California's lead in instituting broad statewide programs.

However, forcing Bush to veto a bill that would not save a single life will allow the America public see how Bush is beholden to the interests of the pro-life absolutist / theocratic wing of the Republican party over the bipartisan pro-science and research majority in Congress. The bill would only use embryonic stem cell lines that would be thrown out anyways, will force Bush to veto a popular issue and hopefully see his approval ratings drop further. Any bets on when he will dip below 40%?

Revenge of the Sith

By Andrew Dobbs

WARNING: the following film review contains excessive dorkiness and a few spoilers. Still, as one writer I saw noted, if you don't know what happens in Revenge of the Sith, you probably were surprised by the ending of Passion of the Christ.

I've been meaning to write this post for a couple of days now, as I saw Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith for the first time on Saturday. Yes, for the first time as I went to see it yet again on Sunday night. I hope I get to see it a time or two more on the big screen, as this film is easily the best Star Wars feature since The Empire Strikes Back and lightyears away from the first two prequels, which were staggering in their awfulness and devastating in their disappointment.

Revenge of the Sith is much like Empire in that they both end darkly. At the end of Empire, the Federation has been weakened by a resurgent Galactic Empire, Luke Skywalker is maimed by Darth Vader who promptly informs him that he is his father. The likelihood that peace and freedom will return to the galaxy and balance returned to the Force looks grim indeed. In this film, the "Chosen One"-- Anakin Skywalker-- allows his jealousy, selfishness, self-doubt and anger to turn him to the Dark Side, being crowned Darth Vader by the Chancellor (soon thereafter Emporer) Palpatine, aka Darth Sidious, before participating in some unspeakable crimes. The darkness of the film gives it a far more serious feel and less artificial tone than the last two films, and since the struggle is largely internal the over-the-top lightsaber battles are frequently punctuated by compelling dialogue.

That's right, I said "compelling dialogue", something the last two films were criminally lacking. Indeed, there are some flops of lines-- virtually all of the exchanges between Anakin and Padme are wooden and slightly embarassing-- but the performances of the superb Ian McDiarmind (the Emporer) and Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi) and the fantastic direction of a much more interesting Hayden Christiansen (Anakin/Vader) more than make up for these shortfalls.

I will say, however, that Lucas depends far too much on technical wizardry. Shortly after I saw the movie on Saturday I watched the original Star Wars (heretofore known as A New Hope, the episode's title) and the difference in the films was stark. Where the lightsaber battles in the new films are so fast paced they are practically epileptic, the ultimate battle in New Hope between Vader and Kenobi was subdued and classic. While the dogfighting scenes in the new films are cluttered with thousands of computer-generated bits of irrelevance, the old films had a simple and conservative look that made the scenes that much more compelling. And because the landscapes of the far off worlds of the original trilogy had to be so simplistic the writing and acting took on greater meaning. Lucas has made a great film in Sith, but it takes about 45 minutes to get good. Before that you feel the same dread you felt sitting in Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones; afterwards you feel the excitement of the original films-- particularly New Hope and Empire. Were I Lucas' boss, I would have started out by cutting the special effects budget by about 75% and told him to find a way to make it work. The film would have been the best of all the films. As it stands, I'd say it is probably the third best-- significantly behind Empire and New Hope but slightly ahead of Jedi (the film where Lucas began his habit of substituting special effects for plot).

Briefly, there has been some talk of the politics of the movie. I think that Lucas tries too hard to quickly slip an anti-Bush message into the movie. My biggest problem is that he handles it poorly-- he could have easily made it the tale of a power-hungry leader undermining traditional democratic institutions in order to establish a brutal colonial order across the galaxy and the liberal-minded Jedi fighting him off. Instead, he takes the same old storyline (with few parallels to today's situation) and tries to throw in some one-liners that fall flat. Padme's tearful rejoinder as the Galactic Senate cheers on Palpatine's grasp for power of "So this is how freedom dies: to thunderous applause" is gripping; but when Anakin says that "if you aren't with me you are my enemy" and Obi-Wan responds that "only a Sith thinks in absolutes" seems to go against the grain of the story. The Jedi are fearless defenders of liberty and the light side of the force against the encroachments of the Dark Side. That seems pretty absolutist to me. Rather, Lucas should have either left the politics at the door (the best option) or had him respond with something to the effect of "I will proudly be called the enemy of the Dark Side." The message is muddled and unnecessary.

In the end, the film is interesting, morally complex, emotionally engaging and exciting. I would recomend it to all fans of the series. It will restore your faith in the series after the previous two dreadful movies and get your blood pumping for the beautiful mythology of the Star Wars story. May the Force be with you.

Vouchers Fail in the State House, Did Leininger Offer Bribes?

By Byron LaMasters

Good news (emphasis mine):

A plan to make Texas one of the first states with a large-scale voucher program died Monday night after a raucous debate and a series of close votes in the House.

After the bill was gutted to make vouchers available only for public and not private schools, Speaker Tom Craddick sustained a parliamentary challenge that killed the issue for this session. [...]

Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, was one of several members who tried to strip the pilot program from the bill.

"This is a proposal that would drain millions of dollars from public school budgets at a time we can't seem to come up with money for textbooks we've already promised to the kids," said Hochberg.

Hochberg's amendment was tabled 72-71, with Craddick casting the deciding vote after an initial vote yielded a tie. Houston Democrats Kevin Bailey and Harold Dutton were not present for the vote. [...]

A second vote on another amendment to strip the provision failed on a 72-72 tie with Craddick voting to table the amendment.

After that, however, Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, succeeded with two amendments that proved lethal. One stripped out the Dallas and Fort Worth districts, and the other removed private and parochial schools.

The chamber was buzzing Monday with word that Craddick and longtime Republican backer James Leininger were pressuring undecided lawmakers in a back office.

Leininger, a San Antonio businessman, has used part of his fortune to set up a voucher program there.

One lawmaker said at least 12 Republicans had been called into a meeting. Craddick's office would neither confirm nor deny the widespread reports about Leininger's presence.

It's not as bad as Bo Pilgrim handing out $10,000 checks on the state senate floor, but Leninger is one of the top GOP donors in Texas, and I would not be surprised if bribes or primary challenge threats were made in the Speaker's office to state house members.

Update: You can watch the debate from yesterday on the house floor here. The Quorum Report has much more including time markers for several of the important moments.

More at PinkDome and Aaron Pena's blog (with a Star Wars twist) as well.

Nuclear Winter of Our Discontent

By Andrea Meyer

I agree with Byron when I say that I am not too happy with this compromise. 100%. Bush's extremist nominees basically get a green light, and only in "extraordinary circumstances" does the minority get to filibuster. I'm sorry, but at whose discretion? Who is to say what are extraordinary circumstances? According to Daily Kos, one of my favorite Senators, Russ Feingold, D-WI, isn't exactly basking in the afterglow of the Dems and Repubs hopping into bed together:

This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions. I value the many traditions of the Senate, including the tradition of bipartisanship to forge consensus. I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when necessary. I respect all my colleagues very much who thought to end this playground squabble over judges, but I am disappointed in this deal.

Well said, Senator. I hope to send my resume to you in '08--if Dems are still allowed to run for the presidency.

Let's look at this "deal": (Quoted from the AP, courtesy of Yahoo!)

The agreement, which applies to Supreme Court nominees, said future judicial nominations should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.