CAPITOL LETTERS

Freshman state Rep. Barbara Mallory Caraway, D-Dallas, got her first bill passed on the House floor today - but not without some Dallas-specific hazing from her colleagues.

This hazing lasted longer than most, and members - including the Speaker - seemed to enjoy giving her a hard time on her first bill, as is the tradition for freshmen legislators.

Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, asked if she'd left the Dallas City Council because state lawmakers are "more docile" - and then asked her how she would compare House Speaker Tom Craddick to former Mayor Ron Kirk.

"I won't!" she said.

The bill deals with smash-and-grab robberies of ATM machines.

Click here for the random association my addled brain just went to.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 6:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The House passed a much-debated bill that aims to clarify what religious expression is allowed in schools. Here's an early report from Karen Brooks. Check back later for updates, both on the Web site and tomorrow in the print version of The Dallas Morning News.

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 3:27 PM | Permalink

Hate to use the overdone cliche of sausage-making, but if you want a glimpse at how the Legislature really operates, don't miss Bob Garrett's story from today's paper.

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 12:26 PM | Permalink

Bruce Tomaso, reporter/editor extraordinaire in our metro dept., just had an unusual encounter with a statewide elected official. He reports:

Just before lunch, I called the Comptroller's Office, seeking a piece of information I need for a story I'm working on. I dialed the number listed in the Texas State Directory.

"Hello," a woman said.

Is this the state comptroller's office? I asked, fairly sure I'd dialed a wrong number.

"Yes it is. This is Susan Combs," the woman said.

Ii told her that in 23 years at The Dallas Morning News, I had never dialed the office of a statewide official during business hours and had that person answer his or her own phone.

Ms. Combs said she just doesn't like to hear a ringing phone go unanswered in her office, and will usually answer them if no one else does. An old habit, she said.

And when I told her why I was calling, she took my name and number, and the person with the information that I needed called me back within minutes.

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Gardner Selby at the Austin American-Statesman has an interesting story today about the practice of ghost voting in the House. Seems like we've seen a lot of shenanigans with voting this session, and I can tell you as someone who tries to determine how lawmakers really voted so we can tell readers, the process ain't pretty. Between "machine malfunctions" and members rewriting history in the House Journal, constituents are sometimes left in the dark. And ghost voting adds another layer.

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Word on the TYC street is that Bart Caldwell, superintendent of the Evins Regional Juvenile Center in Edinburg, is being fired today. The Evins facility was home to a horrific youth riot in 2004 -- one that, for the first time, highlighted the serious problems brewing inside the agency. And it prompted a series of hearings with lawmakers last summer, which, amazingly, didn't bring to light allegations of sexual abuse at the West Texas State School in Pyote.
Those allegations didn't break until this past February -- two years after a Texas Ranger began his investigation into the facility.
TYC spokesman Jim Hurley says Giddings Superintendent Eduardo "Eddie" Martinez is taking over for Mr. Caldwell. And McLennan Superintendent Alan "Chip" Walters is stepping in at Giddings for Mr. Martinez.

Posted by Emily Ramshaw at 11:22 AM | Permalink

Given former Speaker Laney's return, can't resist letting you legeheads take a swing at this one. You write, we'll post. Remember, keep it clean(ish):

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 5:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Today's the Speaker's Reunion Day for former members at the House, so the chamber is lined with House members from waaaaay back in the day. Most of them are older white guys. I know you're shocked (shocked!).

Except Elizabeth Ames Jones, a Cameron Diaz twin who looks like Capitol Barbie surrounded by all those guys old enough to be her grandpa.

This bunch looks veeeeery different from the diverse mix on the floor today.

On the dais, a bunch of former speakers are in a semi-circle behind House Speaker Tom Craddick.

Pete Laney, back for the first time since retiring after last session, is up there too. And he just got a standing ovation from the members.

Also here:
Former speakers Gib Lewis (71-93) and Rayford Price (61-73).

What's so weird is seeing all these lobbyists on the floor of the House - normally, they can't do that while the House is in session - former members who hung up their $600-a-month stipend for serious bank as a member of the lobby.

I'd totally forgotten these guys used to be lawmakers. I'm so used to seeing them in a clutch outside the chamber door as I run the Gucci Gauntlet (thank you choppe) every morning. Not to mention writing about them everytime one of them buys an expensive gift for a committee chair.

It's easy to forget that at one point, The People sent them here to do the state's business.

Russ Tidwell from TTLA and Bill Hammond from TAB - mortal enemies, politically - is my favorite sighting so far.

Former Rep. Debra Danburg, D-Houston, just got up and said: "This may be the first time you've seen a pancreatic cancer survivor and I'm glad to be with you today." (Relatively accurate quote)

Posted by Karen Brooks at 10:18 AM | Permalink

Rep. Talton gave my colleague Elizabeth Souder two explanations for his point of order on Rep. Chavez' gambling bill today.
First, he said he was a "Southern Baptist, and Southern Baptists have traditionally not been in favor of gambling."
But then, when asked if he was blocking bills out of frustration about the outcome of the speaker's race (Talton endorsed Rep. Brian McCall, not Speaker Craddick), he said: “I’m not frustrated. I’ve got idle time.” He added that when he was chairman of committees in prior Legislatures (before being on the outs with Craddick by endorsing McCall), he didn’t have time to come up with points of order.

Posted by Emily Ramshaw at 5:19 PM | Permalink

I can't help but feel sorry for those Tigua and Alabama-Coushatta Indians who drove all kinds of hours to attend today's House vote to permit gaming on their reservations.
Problem was, the vote never happened.
Despite the impassioned oratory of Rep. Norma Chavez -- the El Paso Democrat pushing the bill -- the legislation was sent back to committee on a word-tweak technicality.
That point of order was filed by none other than Republican Rep. Robert Talton, a gambling opponent who used the same technique today to stymie a bill to force the state's largest power generators to shrink. That bill could be back on the floor by Friday. Ms. Chavez says she expects her gambling bill to be re-heard on Monday -- and says she has the votes to pass it.

Posted by Emily Ramshaw at 4:03 PM | Permalink

An update on this session's booze wars:

The package stores have fended off a campaign contribution-fueled push by Texas' two big liquor wholesalers to break up the monopoly that package stores enjoy in selling liquor to bars and restaurants. The package stores' big defender? Rep. Ismael "Kino" Flores, D-Palmview. He runs the House's liquor legislation committee. And he has refused to hear the wholesalers' bill.

Now go to archived video of last night's hearing of Mr. Flores' committee.

Charles Sims, a San Marcos liquor retailer who is secretary-treasurer of the Texas Package Stores Association, irritated Mr. Flores by speaking against a bill to let school districts expand to 1000 feet, from 300 feet, the minimum required distance between any new booze purveyor and one of their campuses.

The bill is by Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, the committee's vice chairman.

(Four minutes, 53 seconds into the meeting:)

Mr. Flores: Don't they know that we were with 'em this whole session? Now they're against us!

Mr. Geren: Uh, huh.

Mr. Flores: Who is Charles Sims? You know how much help you got from this committee?

Mr. Sims: We appreciate it.

Mr. Flores: And now you're against them. We still got 10 days!

Unidentified committee member: He's on probation.

(Mr. Flores then says he may have given Mr. Sims "too much of a hard time." But skip forward to 8:58 into the meeting. After Mr. Sims finishes testifying and walks away, the chairman takes one more shot.)

Mr. Flores: Tell 'em to get ready! The issue might come back!

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 1:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Carumba. The House*just* missed having another racial blow-up on the floor with a bill by Rep. Jim Jackson, R-Carrollton.

The bill would make it a requirement for commercial drivers in Texas to speak English. Until Rep. Eddie Lucio killed it with a point of order.

And by “killed” I mean, “sent it back to committee where I’d be shocked if it escaped a second time.”

But I’ll get to that in a second. Gotta get you all the drama first.

Jackson’s opening presentation included references to Juan Robles Gutierrez, the guy driving the bus that burst into flames and killed more than 20 senior citizens, though he saved some of them during the blaze.

Robles, who entered the country illegally, was cleared of criminally negligent homicide charges and given a work visa.

Reports that the driver who flagged him down after seeing sparks said he didn’t know if Robles could understand him – that’s what Mr. Jackson keyed in on in his opener, and that’s what got a very mad Rep. Kino Flores, a Valley Democrat, started from the back mic.

Flores began by loudly asking him in Spanish from the back mic if he would yield to a question. Craddick tried to ease the tension by telling Mr. Flores he was probably “going to have to talk to someone else about that.”

Undaunted, Flores continued in Spanish until Craddick finally asked a speechless Mr. Jackson (on the front mic) if he would yield for a question. Course he would, and Flores began hitting.

“Are you aware that driver you were talking about was able to save 6 or 7 lives?” he demanded. And then said, “but I want to ask you this right now. Can you tell me what this says??? Can you tell me, or do you want me to come up front?”

He held up card after card with pictures of road signs on them – stop, two-way str eet, etc.

“This last one says you’ve got a bad bill. Get it off this floor.”

Bunch of low whistles and “whoa” heard around the floor, and then Lucio called the point of order – arguably saving Jackson’s you-know-what from a serious shredding a la Sid Miller or Dianne Delisi.

Now. Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Round Rock, chairman of Transportation, seemed amused when asked why he let the bill out of his committee – but simply said, “You don’t have to agree with every bill you let out.” True enough. He also probably knew full well that it would die on a point of order somewhere – those things aren’t that hard to find if you’re really looking – and that Craddick would have been a loony tune if he didn’t uphold it and recommit the bill.

He was right, of course, and that’s exactly what happened.

I’ll be shocked (shocked!) if Krusee lets that bill out when it actually has a chance to get some floor time – and I KNOW that the Ds, particularly the Valley Ds, will be P.O. if it does.

Plus, Craddick takes a hit every time one of these bills winds up on the floor, too – if his minority chairmen keep having to deal with this kind of legislation getting past Calendars and on the floor, that can’t be good for him long-term. Just guessing.

Also, chairmen typically don’t like having to apologize on the House floor for letting such a racially sensitive bill like that out of committee – and Krusee’s not blind. He was there when House State Affairs Chairman David Swinford had to eat crow in front of everyone after the confederate statues bill.

And Jackson, a very pleasant friendly guy, has good reason to avoid that lashing on the floor, too, even if he doesn’t know it yet. It’s ugly, and nobody looks good doing it. Just ask Linda Harper-Brown.

Then again, Mr. Jackson’s district includes Farmer’s Branch – a leader in advocating anti-illegal-immigrant actions. So his constituents are probably on board.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 5:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (17)

We'll be talking a lot about vetoes in the next few weeks, what with a showdown brewing over Gov. Perry's HPV order and a possible clash over toll roads, too. With that in mind, here's an interesting report from Stateline.org on the various types of veto power governors across the country have -- including some with the authority to rewrite portions of bills.

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 4:42 PM | Permalink

The only school voucher measure given a chance of passage in the current session – one that would have allowed autistic children to attend any public or private school using tax dollars – has been pulled off the Senate bill calendar and its prospects now appear dim. Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, said Tuesday she has pulled the measure for now and will only bring it back if she can rework it to her satisfaction.

“I won’t say it’s gone for the session, but I won’t put it back (on the Senate calendar) until I can get it written the way I originally intended,” Ms. Shapiro said, noting that efforts to strike a compromise on the measure “neutered” it to the extent that it won’t accomplish what she wanted. The senator also decided to concentrate on other portions of her legislative package, pointing to a Senate rule that allows senators to have no more than five bills on the Senate intent calendar on any day.

The main opposition to the autistic measure came from Senate Democrats, who banded together to keep Ms. Shapiro from gaining the necessary two-thirds vote of the chamber to bring the bill up for debate. Critics have argued that the bill would take money away from public schools and open the door to a larger private school voucher program. Ms. Shapiro and other supporters said they were trying to give reasonable alternatives to parents of the estimated 17,000 autistic children in Texas.

Posted by Terrence Stutz at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The Senate has signed off on tougher punishments for sex crimes against children. Click below for Emily Ramshaw's early report.

By EMILY RAMSHAW
Austin Bureau
eramshaw@dallasnews.com

The Senate passed its own version of the contentious Jessica’s Laws against sex offenders on Tuesday, after a tempered debate that covered everything from the constitutionality of the death penalty to wrongful convictions in Texas.
The bill, which passed 30-1, increases penalties for many sex offenders and reserves the death penalty for the most dangerous kind: those who have been convicted twice of raping a child. A first conviction for raping a child under 6 – and for particularly egregious cases against youth between ages 7 and 14 -- would come with a mandatory 25-year minimum sentence.
The bill, which came to the Senate from the House, must be returned to the House for final approval. In addition to the heightened penalties, it requires real time GPS monitoring for the worst sex offenders released to the community, and extends the statute of limitations for prosecuting child sex abuse cases to 20 years after the victim’s 18th birthday.
But it’s less punitive than the legislation originally proposed by Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. That version, which would’ve installed 25-year minimum sentences for many degrees of first time sex offenders and allowed prosecutors to seek the death penalty for all repeat child offenders, was tempered after opposition from victims’ rights groups and prosecutors.
Those unlikely opponents have continued to decry many of the components of Jessica’s Law. They fear punishing sex offenders with the death penalty and longer sentences will give juries pause and hamper convictions. They question the constitutionality of sentencing someone other than a murderer to death. And they worry that, with the threat of the death penalty, sex offenders will kill their young victims to destroy the evidence.
“Our concerns haven’t changed,” said Torie Camp, deputy director of the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, which has spoken out against provisions in the bill. “It’s not just that we fear convictions will be harder to get. We think victims will be less likely to make reports to law enforcement when they understand the end result may be sending a relative or close family friend to prison for 25 years.”
Jessica’s Laws, named for a 9-year-old Florida girl who was raped and buried alive by a convicted sex offender in 2005, are part of a national movement to deter and punish child molesters. The laws, first passed in Florida and now on the books in more than a dozen states, generally carry 25-year minimum sentences for child sex offenders, lifetime electronic monitoring and 2,000-foot child safety zones around parks and schools. Five states have authorized the death penalty for some child sex offenders.

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 1:50 PM | Permalink

Lege watchers no doubt have Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report bookmarked, but if you don't, be sure to check out the Countdown to Sine Die sponsored by Sen. Kevin Eltife, R-Tyler. (Click on "Home" in the top left if you don't see it.)

Two ways to look at this: We're finally close enough for a countdown. But 35 days sounds like a long, long, LOOOONG time.

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 1:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

In an unexpected twist, the House Corrections Committee voted late last night to keep the current leadership structure of the Texas Youth Commission -- an executive director and board of directors – in its version of the TYC reform bill.
This 4-3 vote flew in the face of a joint compromise reached by key Senate and House leaders last month to install a governor-appointed commissioner over the agency. The commissioner, coupled with a nine-member advisory board, is a key provision of the Senate TYC reform bill, which passed last week.
The House TYC bill should come up for a full vote sometime in the next two weeks.

Posted by Emily Ramshaw at 9:31 AM | Permalink

Requirements to show proof of ID at the polls were narrowly endorsed by the Texas House on Monday, with exemptions for senior citizens over 80 and a provision to give free IDs to people who can't afford to buy them.

After a six-hour debate in which House members narrowly defeated several attempts to soften the measure, the House endorsed the voting requirements 76-68 on a largely party line vote.

Did I mention the debate was six hours? OK, just checking.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 8:42 PM | Permalink

The House has just voted 73-72 to kill an amendment that would exempt 65 year-olds and up from the bill requiring a photo ID and proof of citizenship to vote. The original idea, put forth by the bill proponents, proposed 80 as that age.

So now anyone over 80 won't have to show ID under this bill.

The unanswerable question is, if they don't need an ID, then how do you know how old they are? How do you tell?

A couple of arguments against lowering the exempt age from 80 to 65 was that 65-year-olds are still plenty young enough to have a driver's license.

The argument for it was that since the AARP has come out opposed to the bill, they should just take seniors out of the equation altogether.

Rep. Jim Jackson, R-Carrollton, asks: How in the world did you come up with 65?
Rep. Jim Dunnam, House Dem Chair, responds: That's when you qualify for social security. How in the world did ya'll come up with 80??

The question of how you tell is not easy. If they have no driver's license, if they've long since lost their birth certificate since they draw social securty and dont need it anymore, and since their voter reg cards didn't start requirng a birth date until 1972, there's no verifying their age.

Hi, I'm 80. Prove me wrong.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 2:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

... that the House of Reps. is debating the merits of using a photo ID to vote at the polls so that people can't impersonate others when it comes time to cast their vote?

Given this same body's extreme affection and penchant for ghost voting?

I'm just asking.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 1:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

It may have been easier if they’d just come clean about all their motives – but Rep. Kelly Hancock’s guidance-counselor bill just barely made the grade today and eeked by on a close vote.

Last week it died by one vote. Today it got a 73-73. On verification, after a few machine malfunctions and ghost votes by members who haven’t been on the floor in a week, the bill passed 74-69. He must have been shocked that a pro-life bill got such a cool reception.

Maybe that's because nobody told anyone it was a pro-life bill.

The bill requires guidance counselors in large school districts to report which outside services – counseling, mental health, doctors, etc. – they’re referring students to each year. Now, the names of the students are confidential, and supporters of the bill say it gives more accountability in the school districts. Opponents say it ruins the confidentiality of students and discourages girls from reporting violence, along with other privacy concerns.

Here’s the kicker, though: The supporters include the Texas Eagle Forum and the Texas Catholic conference – a combination that, when in the context of health services for young people, screams two words: Pregnant teens.

This is a pro-life bill, as confirmed by Mr. Hancock’s own single, vague remark on the mic – largely overlooked by other reps on the floor - regarding the importance of knowing whether counselors are following the “abstinence-only” education policies of the schools. This comment was buried in arguments that its intent was more transparency - which I've no doubt is *also* the case.

Ding-ding-ding. The bill would show anyone with access to those reports whether a school counselor or district is referring girls to Planned Parenthood, or whether they’re referring them to the “crisis pregnancy centers.”

Just thought I’d throw that out there, since nobody mentioned it on the floor and the Eagle Forum types didn’t actually testify in committee, so it’s doubtful that the abortion angle to this bill has ever been mentioned in the public forum.

I may have missed it. But if I did, than others did, too. And whatever side of this issue you fall on, it’s pretty key to know what exactly your lawmakers are thinking when they pass, you know, new laws and stuff.

And what those new laws would be used for.

My question is, whose brilliant idea was it to hide the pro-life argument here? Did Texas become pro-choice without my knowledge? I would think that once supporters turned it into an abortion vote, it would be a lot harder to vote against for a lot of people. Just guessing.

Here’s my second question. Why is Kelly Hancock, in his moderate district, carrying bills for the hard right? Did I miss something?

Posted by Karen Brooks at 12:05 PM | Permalink

It was manageable back in, oh, say, February, when all I had to do to track a bill I was following was simply check a calendar. "Oh look, it's one of 5 items on the agenda in Committee X," or "It's right there in black and white on Tuesday's Daily House Calendar! How very predictable!"
Not so by April. This month, I'm spending every waking moment of my life just trying to figure out when bills will be laid out, left pending, voted out, sent to conference, amended, tabled, passed... and it's making me insane. My biggest complaints, after the jump:

1) The House is supposed to be the nutty, unpredictable chamber -- not the trusty, responsible Senate. But the Senate's calendar system is so much more confusing than the House's (which generally runs in order). Unless you're BFFs with Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, (or you have ESP, a skill my Austin bureau colleagues seem to have been born with) how do you ever know when a bill is going to come up? How does Dewhurst decide which bill to take up, and when? Does he organize them around his bathroom breaks? ("Hmm, I really shouldn't take up TYC right now, because I had four cups of coffee this morning, and this could run long!") Likewise, if I'm a lawmaker born without a sixth sense, how do I know when to take my own bathroom break? What happens if he calls up my bill while I'm powdering my nose?

2) The committee calendars are just as annoying. Because you'll sit through an endless meeting, only to have the bill you're interested be left pending at, oh, 4 a.m. Not only have you wasted your entire night, you've got to figure out JUST WHEN that pending bill is going to be voted out of the committee. And the pending bills aren't ever printed on the committee calendars, meaning you've got to make sure you know exactly when that next meeting is (probably scheduled "upon adjournment" with the 50 other committees you're supposed to be monitoring that night) so you don't miss it when your bill FINALLY moves. Either that or you have to call 17 committee clerks or policy advisors or bored college interns -- who "uh-huh" so loud you can just hear them tearing up your phone number -- to find out what the deal is.

Now multiply this hassle by, oh, dozens of bills with complicated 3- and 4-digit numbers, some with SBs, some with HBs, some with HJRs and SJRs, and you've got yourself a veritable mess.

Bottom line is this: If it's this complicated for someone who's been paying attention for four months, imagine what it's like for the average constituent with a vested interest in one of these bills. If this is open government, if this is all-access democracy, I must've been asleep in high school civics.

Posted by Emily Ramshaw at 4:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Sen. Kip Averitt, R-McGregor, fends off press inquiries about who will be the Senate's five negotiators with the House on the budget by reworking a line from the classic Humphrey Bogart film, "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre."

In the movie, a Mexican bandit leader named Gold Hat tries to convince Bogart's character, Fred C. Dobbs, that Gold Hat and his buddies are the Federales.

Dobbs: "If you're the police, where are your badges?"

Gold Hat: "Badges!? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!!"

Now back to the Capitol extension yesterday ...

Reporter: "What's the latest on the budget conference committee?"

Averitt: "Conference committee!? We don't need no stinking conference committee!! Take it or leave it!"

That was pretty clever, given the sensitivity of the subject.

Mr. Averitt and Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, are walking on eggshells these days.

Neither is certain to be picked this session to repeat his 2005 role as a Senate budget negotiator. The reason? About a half dozen hard-line conservative Republicans are pushing Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to name some of their group instead. In Mr. Averitt's case, it's presumably because he's strongly backed full undoing of 2003 cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program. (He's hardly a spendthrift, though. His Senate Finance work group on natural resources, environmental protection, general government and regulatory agencies spent less than it was allotted this session.)

Mr. Duncan's perceived sin? As they say around the Senate, I'm not advised, sir.

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 3:18 PM | Permalink

If much better gas mileage isn't reason enough to make the switch and buy one of the growing number of hybrid motor vehicles, the Senate on Wednesday added another carrot. Under a bill approved unanimously by the chamber, owners of hybrids would be able to obtain a sticker that would authorize them to use high occupancy vehicle lanes regardless of the number of occupants in the car or SUV.

The special "hybrid vehicle" insignias would be issued for free by the Texas Department of Transportation. The stickers could continue to be issued until HOV lanes in a metropolitan area reached 80 percent of capacity under the Senate bill.

Reports out of California indicate that such stickers have added significant resale value to hybrids that had the stickers before the state quit issuing them when predetermined limits were reached. So that could be another reason to spring for a hybrid now. The bill by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, now goes to the House.

Posted by Terrence Stutz at 7:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Rep. Leo Berman just killed his own bill making it a Class B misdemeanor to throw a lit cigarette out a car window. Or cigar, or whatever. The firefighters had asked him to carry it to offset all the fire damage that lit cigs cause to homes, fields, farms and animals - particularly during a drought.

Why, you ask? Well, I haven't flagged him down yet, but here's a wild guess.

Earlier today, when Berman first laid out the bill, Rep. Mark Homer got up to the mic and pointed out to him that a class B misdemeanor leads to the state revoking your concealed-carry license.

WHAT?!@#$%^&?!

The collective gasp in the lobby nearly sucked all the air out of the Capitol - because today, the NRA and gun types are in the building monitoring the progress of the CHL-privacy bill that just went through the House like a speeding bullet.

Imaging. Tossing a cigarette out the window of your pickup truck on the freeway could cost you your concealed-carry license. Talk about your unintended consequences.

Berman postponed his bill after Mr. Homer requested it, and then killed it altogether.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

The House just overwhelmingly passed legislation exempting the names of concealed-carry license holders from open records laws.

The vote was 135-7. But I know that vote will change at least once - to 134-8. Because someone voted "yes" for Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, after he railed against the bill in today's story about the legislation.

Mr. Coleman wasn't even on the floor at the time, and according to a friend of his on the House floor, his office was "appalled" at the ghost vote - which he apparently didnt' request - and plans to change the vote in the House Journal to a resounding "Hell, no."

Well, technically, it'll just be a no.

Inaccurate ghost-voting is one of those scenarios that machine-malfunction advocates say is a good reason for not smacking the reps around too much when their voting machines "malfunction" on a verification vote - the only time they can change their vote AND change the outcome of the vote. Right now, they can change their votes in the journal after the fact but can't influence the outcome. Which is just ... I dunno, odd.

In Garnet's case, his vote wouldn't have changed anything. This chamber has passed that bill so many times that it was golden. Plus, this is probably one of those situations the rule was designed for.

But in theory, members could vote to pass a bill they like, and then go up and change their votes in the journal so that their opponents can't use that vote against them.

Wonder if there's ever been a case where the journal reflected more "no" votes than "yes" votes - after the bill had already passed.

Just curious.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 11:03 AM | Permalink

One of our DMN brothers, editorial writer Bill McKenzie, has an interesting take on the Patrick-Whitmire showdown.

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

So while the House is locked down on electricity rates, the Senate is long gone, having passed the budget. There were the usual squabbles over CHIP and tax cuts, but nothing like the throwdown between Sens. Whitmire and Patrick. Our man Bob Garrett witnessed it all. For a sneak peak at his story on the Houstonians imbroglio, read on the jump:

By ROBERT T. GARRETT
Austin Bureau
rtgarrett@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN — When Houston voters tossed a radio talk-show host into the clubby Senate last year, everyone knew a volcano was building.
It finally blew Thursday. And boy, was it hot and ugly.
Sen. Dan Patrick, the freshman Republican who has challenged Senate traditions, ticked off Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat who is the Senate’s “dean” with 24 years of service, with a couple of club infractions.
First, Mr. Patrick, who rode anti-tax sentiments into office, said he and his staff easily could find $2.9 billion in cuts to the state budget. And he waved a three-page list, which he said he planned to distribute to the media.
Mr. Whitmire said he should have given it to budget writers and noted that Mr. Patrick’s fellow senators, not the media, vote on the budget.
Mr. Patrick, who has a talk show in Dallas and Houston, responded, “This member of the press has a vote.”
Mr. Whitmire shot back, “Are you a member of the press out here, or are you a senator?”
And Mr. Patrick countered, “Are you an attorney, or are you a senator?”
Mr. Whitmire: “You need to share your Senate work if you’re serious about it.”
The two men explained what set off the acrimonious exchange.
Mr. Whitmire said it was a finger-wagging “lecture” that Mr. Patrick gave Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston. Mr. Gallegos is recovering from a liver transplant. But he returned to the Senate to vote on the budget.
Mr. Whitmire said to Mr. Patrick: “You got my attention because you blasted my best friend a while ago.”
Mr. Patrick said a remark by Mr. Gallegos, claiming that last year’s property-tax cuts mainly favor the rich at the expense spending to help poor Texans, made him angry.
“They’re not all rich,” Mr. Patrick said. “Somebody needs to stand up for middle-class Texans.”

Posted by Ryan J. Rusak at 8:19 PM | Permalink

Boaters would face sobriety checkpoints on Texas lakes under legislation unanimously approved Thursday by the Senate. The measure by Sen. Chris Harris, R-Arlington, would authorize law enforcement agencies that patrol public waters in Texas to set up temporary checkpoints to determine whether some boating operators are illegally intoxicated.

Sponsors of the measure, which now goes to the House, said it would keep drunk boaters off Texas lakes and reduce the number of alcohol-related accidents on the water. Law enforcement agencies have had success with land-based sobriety checkpoints - but there is no provision under current law to check out boat operators.

Boats could not be held up more than 10 minutes at any checkpoint unless there was reasonable suspicion to further detain the watercraft. In addition, a checkpoint could not operate for more than four hours and not more than twice at the same location in a seven-day period, under the legislation.

Posted by Terrence Stutz at 6:27 PM | Permalink

OK. With the exception of an hour break, the House has spent four and a half hours on the third reading calendar - which is for bills that have already passed the House and just need the rubber stamp.

This chamber rarely stalls out on third readings, but so far there have been four bills that reps have either questioned from the back mic and spoken against. One of them went down in flames. One of them was amended (which requires 100 votes), and kind of gutted.

That's what third readings are for, but this is the kind of action you expect to see on second reading - the real vote, usually. They must have been preoccupied yesterday .... with .. uhm, something other than the Calendar, I guess.

Today they're on fire. Any other time, some would guess that they're putting off the TXU bill. But these are actually issues that some of these guys care about, so I really think they just sat up and went, "Wha?!?!?"

Interesting aside: If they start debating and voting and trying to kill bills on third reading as vigorously as they do on second, then that House rule requiring record votes on third reading might actually start meaning something.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 1:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

At the Reagan Day Dinner last night in Dallas County, I asked headline speaker Mitt Romney what he thought about President Bush's latest immigration plan. He said he didn't know much about it.

What? Does he read the paper?

Romney went on the say he was against giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship that does not exist today.

It was obviously a nice way of saying he disagrees with the President.

Posted by Gromer Jeffers Jr. at 1:39 PM | Permalink

Senators just welcomed their Houston Democratic colleague, Mario Gallegos, to the floor for the first time since January.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and senators applauded and bestowed hugs on Mr. Gallegos, who is recuperating from a liver transplant.

He returned to Austin today to vote on the budget.

“My constituents expect me to represent them, and despite doctors' orders to the contrary, I cannot in good conscience be away from the Senate floor on the day that I’m expected to vote on the state budget,” Mr. Gallegos said in a written statement.

Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, the Senate's longest-serving member, gave welcoming remarks on behalf of his colleagues.

"It shows that our prayers have been answered," Mr. Whitmire said.

He also singled out Mr. Gallego's wife, Theresa.

A little while later, Mr. Gallegos offered a memorial resolution for the wife of a Houston educator. It passed unanimously.

Gallegos spokesman Harold Cook said the senator was expected to return to Houston after today's floor debate to continue recuperating.

"He will again be in Austin as soon as his doctor clears him to do so, and when he anticipates that his vote would be crucial to the passage or failure of legislation of importance to his constituents," Mr. Cook said.

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 10:23 AM | Permalink

About 100 community activists held a fire breathing rally inside the Capitol today, calling on the Legislature -- and specifically, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst -- to roll back restrictions imposed on the Children's Health Insurance Program four years ago.

Three men of the cloth -- and some of the placards folks in the crowd were holding --rebuked Mr. Dewhurst for opposing a House-passed plan that would again let families renew coverage annually instead of every six months.

"We don't have patience with a lieutenant governor who doesn't understand the problems and the difficulties that affect the working families of Texas," said Father Kevin Collins of Houston, one of the clergymen active in Industrial Areas Foundation groups such as Dallas Area Interfaith.

The "padres" -- OK, one of the three was Methodist -- stopped every few minutes to recognize another Democratic senator who had dropped by. Each Democratic senator enthusiastically endorsed annual renewals. None mentioned Mr. Dewhurst. He was absent but nonetheless the veritable elephant in the room.

Speaking of the big pachyderm, he adroitly used Democratic Sen. Judith Zaffirini at his post-Senate-session press conference as a foil against proponents of annual renewals in CHIP. Ms. Zaffirini has fought for years for annual renewals for children in both CHIP and Medicaid. She opposes giving the better-off families on CHIP a better deal while "the very, very poor" who are on Medicaid have only six-month policies. But of course, doing what she wants is so expensive it isn't even on the table this session.

Mr. Dewhurst gratefully accepted the Laredo Democrat's defense of him as "a champion for children." (Prediction: She will collect on that IOU from him, in spades, during budget negotiations with the House in coming weeks. But wait! Some Republicans say she already has.)

Mr. Dewhurst lamented how the U.S. Postal Service doesn't forward mail after a year, which is how he said he failed to file a form required every four years from one of his businesses -- a lapse gleefully seized upon by Democratic spear chucker Matt Angle, who was only too happy to feed Mr. Dewhurst back his own words about how asking CHIP families to fill out a form every six months isn't too onerous.

The presser's big news: Mr. Dewhurst wants to transcend what he calls the silly issue of CHIP policies' duration.

"Let's get off this debate of 6 months or 12 months," he said. "That's not the issue. ... That's something made up by some zealots and magnified by the press."

His answer? "I've been intrigued," he said, by the idea of having the state check families' eligibility with great frequency, so that children would stay on CHIP indefinitely, until the state learned they were ineligible. He didn't explain the concept, which he called "continuous enrollment." But he said he wants to study some other states' moves in that direction.

Wonder if Accenture will get that contract ...

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 11:05 PM | Permalink

An effort to force judges to more quickly report their campaign contributors --including those who might have cases before their court -- ran aground today in the Texas House. Rep. Pete Gallego of Alpine tried to attach an amendment to a bill requiring that judges report their money two weeks after completing their fundraising -- not waiting for months as is the current practice.

Here's the backstory: Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht ran up a $340,000 legal bill defending himself against ethics charges for promoting the appointment of Harriet Miers, a close friend, to the U.S. Supreme Court. He solicited political donors for the money.

We reported last week that Hecht collected $16,000 from Houston homebuilder Bob Perry through a political committee. Perry is a big-time Republican campaign contributor. Turns out that Perry Homes argued a big case last month before the high court involving a retirement-age couple in a 10-year battle against Perry over a defective house.

Whether Perry has given Hecht more, we don't know. Hecht doesn't have to report his full list of donors until July. And Bob Perry's people aren't talking.

So Gallego & Co. tried to change the law to make judges report more quickly in the future. Lawmakers liked it -- by a vote of 84-61. But Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick struck down the amendment on a point of order.

Posted by Wayne Slater at 3:15 PM | Permalink

Woah!

Rep. Lon Burnam and Rep. Terri Hodge, both liberal Democrats who have kicked and flailed to get a bill on the floor for at least four years, passed bills today.

Hodge's lets prisons reinstate good-conduct to prisoners who have lost it, as a way to use it as a disciplinary tool.

Burnam's creates a tax holiday for energy efficient appliances.

Both reps have been in the doghouse, basically, since the Republicans got into power in the House in 2003.

Hodge joked that she wanted to go ahead and get final passage immediately (third reading) before the body changed their mind.

And Burnam got a freshmen-style hazing after Ways and Means Chair Jim Keffer went to the back mic and said, "Mr. Burnam is this your first bill?"
Then he and Fred Hill started bantering - "How'd this happen?" "Wouldn't have happened in MY committee" "Was I even there? Ritter, did you do this?"

Good stuff. This is interesting, actually, because it had become obvious that these guys wouldn't be getting anythng on the floor for as long as Tom Craddick was speaker.

Times, they are a-changin.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 1:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

House leader: "Absolutely not."

House Licensing and Admin Chairman Kino Flores has a bill on the floor right now to do a sunset review of the Texas Lottery Commission in 2009, instead of 2011.

His vice chairman, Charlie Geren, pre-empted apparently growing suspicion that the bill woudl be a vehicle for the governor's rather unpopular idea to sell the lottery.

Geren: "What did you say every time the sale of the lottery came up in committee?"
Flores: "Absolutely not, absolutely not, absolutely not."

Any questions?

Posted by Karen Brooks at 7:17 PM | Permalink

Even a gun-friendly Legislature has its limits.

Sen. Kim Brimer says the Senate will install metal detectors in its galleries within the next few weeks for the duration of the session after some senators have been stalked and threatened to the point where Brimer’s worried about a terrorist incident.

Brimer, chairman of the Senate committee that oversees these things, said he recognizes that the move may draw some criticism from people who don’t like the Legislature’s loosening of gun controls – including one that would let employees keep guns in their cars in the parking lots of businesses – but says he can’t compromise the security of the Senate.

“It’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t type of deal,” he says. “It’s more severe type threats. It’s not just guns, it has to do with explosives,” he said. “More terrorist oriented. A larger group of people could be injured, and we just feel like we have the capabilities, and the members are all interested in doing it, so it’s a sign of the times.”

When it goes into effect, anyone – lobbyist, guests, school kids, local delegations – who wants to sit above the chambers and watch them live in action would have to go through a metal detector.

Brimer says he originally wanted them in the entrances of the Capitol but couldn’t get House Admin Chairman Tony Goolsby on board.

Goolsby still isn’t sold on detectors in the galleries, either, though as of this morning he hadn’t told Brimer.

“We don’t see any need to do it in the House side. I have a little concern about some idiot getting in that gallery and throwing something down, but that’s only happened twice since I’ve been here.”

(There's a joke in there somewhere...)

Starting in August, though, Goolsby says the Capitol is starting “a whole security deal” on the front doors – metal detectors, presumably – in August.

Right now, DPS officials here say that guns – with CHL’s of course, Texas’ version of a library card – are allowed in all the public areas of the Capitol. No! the floor, but in the galleries, committee rooms, rotundas, etc. How that would work with the detectors, the captain here says, remains to be seen.

Anyone remember when they did that right after 911? Thankfully, the detectors at the front doors were out by the time session started.

I’ll tell you one thing. If I have to spend every day of every session standing in line behind 300 school kids (and I mean, that’s a conservative estimate some days) just to get to work, I’ll shoot my own self.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 5:56 PM | Permalink

On Jan. 24, I left a House Democratic press conference and scooted over to the Senate to ask Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst for a response to two Houston reps' insinuation that he is a hypocrite for proclaiming a "Children First" agenda while opposing annual renewals for families in the Children's Health Insurance Program.

"I don't think most people in Texas have a lot of sympathy for someone that can't fill out a two-page application every six months," Mr. Dewhurst said, defending a semiannual renewal rule that lawmakers imposed on CHIP families in 2003.

I suspected that wasn't the last time we'd hear that quote -- either from Mr. Dewhurst or CHIP advocates.

Today, Democratic activist Matt Angle, once an aide to former Congressman Martin Frost, released documents showing that a Dewhurst business lost its license on Dec. 6 for failing to file a report due at the Secretary of State's office every four years.

"Deadbeat Dewhurst failed to file basic business forms," screamed a headline on the Lone Star Project web site.

It turns out one Dewhurst business failed to file a so-called "periodic report." The report is sort of like a Rolodex refresher. It updates the state on whether a limited partnership has a new office address or any new officers or directors. The David Dewhurst Investment Partnership Ltd. was sent two warning letters last summer about its failure to submit a report. Mr. Angle says Dewhurst-related businesess have ignored similar filing requirements "at least six times" over the past 23 years.

Dewhurst spokesman Mike Wintemute disputed Mr. Angle's account of some of the earlier, alleged paperwork lapses. But Mr. Wintemute acknowledged that the limited partnership made a boo-boo last year. Its address changed in 2001, he said.

"The partnership never received a notice to file," he said. But it's still active and the failure to file the update "is being corrected as we speak."

Many Democrats have said requiring reenrollment in CHIP every six months has bumped tens of thousands of otherwise-eligible children from the rolls. Mr. Angle seized on the partnership's paperwork lapse.

"When David Dewhurst makes a mistake, he has millions to fall back on," Mr. Angle said. "But when CHIP families make a mistake, Dewhurst thinks their kids should lose health insurance."

Mr. Wintemute denied there's a Dewhurst double standard. Mr. Wintemute said re-upping in CHIP "is quite simple. ... What we're talking about are two completely different requests."

Posted by Robert T. Garrett at 5:36 PM | Permalink

Pretty clear where this body stands on the toll contracts: They just voted 134-5 for a two-year moratorium.

All projects within the boundaries of the North Texas Tollway Authority are exempt - after a big fight by the DFW contingent.

If Senate Trans Chair John Carona, R-Dallas, (presuming it goes to his committee) can be finessed into letting a moratorium out of his committee a SECOND time - and with 29 senators supporting it, chances are good - then this state may not see toll projects moving forward for at least two years.

Except in DFW. Natch.

Posted by Karen Brooks at 5:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Didn’t Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Round Rock, stick with House Speaker Tom Craddick during the speaker’s race, in spite of rumors to the contra