tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4974847323764183962024-03-05T00:01:45.847-06:00Daniel WilliamsA Texpatriate attempting grad school in ChicagoDaniel Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08005254570208749657noreply@blogger.comBlogger357125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-66092170991465959902020-05-07T16:23:00.000-05:002020-05-07T16:23:06.447-05:00Racial Resentment in LGBT Respondents to the American National Election Survey and Cooperative Congressional Election Survey<iframe height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jK7GuFejwCqaNlLktL8ld4lQ8DkTnT5p/preview" width="600"></iframe>DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-53109744482365208892019-04-24T21:18:00.001-05:002019-04-26T20:34:19.542-05:00Towards a Quantitative Framework by Which Large-N Observations of Conflicts in Policy Positions Between Special Interests May Be Analyzed<iframe height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bi3V_ggkl_naOzdFeXNTAR6wfvbU2zOr/preview" width="600"></iframe>DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-73580463847267426542019-01-04T11:27:00.002-06:002019-01-04T11:32:16.820-06:00The Effect of Ballot Length on Voter Turnout<iframe src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v27V_nTcK4u3fnTeybqYU8iXPVDstMJ7/preview" width="600" height="480"></iframe>DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-50834710773432912572018-05-14T09:46:00.002-05:002019-02-06T19:05:11.939-06:00Interview with KPFT's Queer Voices on History of Texas Sodomy LawThe 15th Anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, finding Texas' sodomy law unconstitutional, is coming up in June. I had the opportunity to speak with Houston's Queer Voices radio program about prior legal challenges to the law dating back to the 1860s. Listen below.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe height="100" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jW19xF2u26XwQDmRHa2wMntondthnzFG/preview" width="400"></iframe></div>
<br />
KPFT is in the middle of their summer pledge drive right now, so if you appreciate these kinds of conversations and progressive radio consider <a href="http://kpft.org/support-community-radio/" target="_blank">making a contribution</a> and let them know you appreciate Queer Voices. DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-31841968243635253092018-05-01T11:34:00.000-05:002019-01-16T10:02:19.340-06:00Reconsidering the Disparate Racial Impact of Felon Voter Disenfranchisement <iframe height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eywtBrqH2N8aurBBIs_CDqUsxljWQxKq/preview" width="600"></iframe><br />
Listen to the <a href="https://www.danielwilliamstx.com/2019/01/podcast-reconsidering-disparate-racial.html" target="_blank">PODCAST</a>DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-53009584925168252262018-05-01T09:59:00.000-05:002019-01-16T10:01:48.273-06:00Podcast: Reconsidering the Disparate Racial Impact of Felon Voting Disenfranchisement<iframe allow="autoplay" frameborder="no" height="300" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/559942938&color=%23ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true&visual=true" width="100%"></iframe>
Read the <a href="https://www.danielwilliamstx.com/2018/05/reconsidering-disparate-racial-impact.html" target="_blank">PAPER </a>DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-36081861069394772582018-01-04T11:35:00.000-06:002019-01-04T11:35:53.195-06:00Legal Status of Consensual Homosexual Sodomy in Ghana, and Côte d’Ivoire as Colonial Legacy: a Comparative Study<iframe src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r6o7bMH8GdgV9pUE6pdPTL2DTJKX2jFR/preview" width="600" height="480"></iframe>DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-47264640094076225582017-10-22T18:37:00.000-05:002017-10-27T18:01:10.817-05:00Understanding the Seven 2017 State Constitutional AmendmentsIt's that time of the biennium again! Time for voters to consider constitutional amendments on small minutia of public policy. Texas has the longest state constitution in the nation. It's so detailed and specific that many ordinary and noncontroversial provisions of the law must be submitted to the voters for approval. That means that we the voters have a responsibility to educate ourselves on all that ordinary and noncontroversial minutia and do our best to vote in an informed and thoughtful way.<br />
<br />
I've included the text of each proposed constitutional amendment, along with an attempt to briefly explain what the amendment is trying to do and how I'll be voting when early voting starts tomorrow. I've also included information on how various advocacy groups and media outlets on all sides of the political spectrum have endorsed. If I've left off a group you think should be included let me know in the comments and I'll add it.<br />
<h2>
Prop 1</h2>
<h3>
Text </h3>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization for less than the market value of the residence homestead and harmonizing certain related provisions of the Texas Constitution."</span><br />
<h3>
What's this trying to do?</h3>
In most states the government is funded by a "three-legged stool" of sales tax, property tax and income tax. In Texas we don't have an income tax and the state portion of the <a href="https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/sales/faq/collection.php" target="_blank">sales tax is capped at 6.25%</a>. This means we rely heavily on property taxes to fund state government; accordingly we have the<a href="https://www.thebalance.com/best-and-worst-states-for-property-taxes-3193328" target="_blank"> sixth highest property tax rate</a> in the country. With property taxes so high state officials often ask the voters to permit vulnerable populations to pay lower property tax rates. In 2011 voters approved a <a href="http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.8.htm#8.1-b" target="_blank">constitutional amendment</a> that allows the state to set a lower property tax rates for partially disabled veterans whose homes were donated to them. The specific wording of the amendment, however, doesn't apply to partially disabled veterans who have been given homes at discounted prices due to their disability.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.helpingahero.org/selection-process" target="_blank">Helping a Hero Foundation</a> brought this issue to the legislature's attention. Their program provides homes to disabled veterans adapted to their special needs. The veteran provides the first $50,000 of the cost of the home then Helping a Hero provides the rest up to $100,000. This amendment allows homes such as these to be taxed at a lower rate in the same way that homes where the entire value of the house was donated to the veteran.<br />
<br />
The legislature also passed <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=HB150" target="_blank">HB 150</a>, which has the details of how the exemption in Prop 1 will play out, if the voters pass it. In order to qualify the portion of the value of the house gifted to the veteran cannot be more than 50% of the to total value. In the case of homes from the Helping a Hero Foundation that means that the only homes that qualify for the exemption will cost at least $100,000. The bill reduces the tax rate for qualified homes from 8% to 5%. The Texas Constitution requires that property taxes only fund local government, things like schools, cities and counties. So that reduction isn't coming from the state's budget, but local governments. The<a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/fiscalnotes/html/HB00150F.htm" target="_blank"> Legislative Budget Board</a> found that since the passage of the 2011 constitutional amendment only 16 homes have been exempted. It's hard to say for certain how many more Prop 1 would exempt, but it seems unlikely that the number will be significant.<br />
<br />
<h3>
How I'll Be Voting</h3>
This is a tough one. Our system of taxing is fundamentally broken. <a href="https://www.forabettertexas.org/budgettaxprimer.html" target="_blank">The poorest 20% of Texans pay, on average, 14.6% of their income in taxes every year</a>; while the wealthiest 20% pay 3.6%. That regressive taxing structure is, in part, due to our over-reliance on property taxes to fund government. That over-reliance also explains why our property taxes our so high. Lawmakers desire to relieve certain vulnerable populations from that burden is laudable, but wouldn't it be better to fix the broken system rather than keeping passing new carve outs? Additionally, the state legislature isn't playing with their own cash. The reduction in funding from Prop 1, however minor it might be, isn't coming out of state coffers, but from our schools, hospitals, community colleges and other local services. There's an ongoing pattern of the state claiming to "cut taxes," but instead shifting the burden on to local government. Local governments are limited in how they can make up the difference. For the most part they can either raise property taxes, charge more fees for services or increase fines for infractions of local laws (things like speeding tickets); all of which contribute to the regressive nature of our tax structure.<br />
<br />
At the same time we do have a system that reduces the property tax rate for partially disabled veterans who are given the entire value of their home as a charitable gift. It seems unfair to do that and not also extend the same benefit to veterans who only receive a portion of their home as a gift. Fairness matters and there's no question that this is a population that is vulnerable and needs assistance.<br />
<br />
At some point we've got to draw a line in the sand and start opposing these property tax carve outs, but I don't think this is that point. I'll be voting <b>FOR</b> Prop 1 with my teeth gritted. The effect on local coffers is minimal and there is an issue of fairness in how we dole out these exemptions that shouldn't be ignored.<br />
<h3>
Other Endorsements</h3>
For: <a href="http://tcclc.org/?zone=%2Funionactive%2Fview_article.cfm&HomeID=675412&page=Volunteer20for20Voter20Registration20Drive#.Weu0EBhRtgS.facebook" target="_blank">TCCLC</a>, <a href="http://www.texasaft.org/action/elections/the-lowdown-on-seven-state-constitutional-amendments-on-november-7-ballot/" target="_blank">TxAFT</a>, <a href="https://gawtp.com/state-constitutional-amendment-information-from-empower-texans/" target="_blank">Empower TX</a>, <a href="http://www.teaparty911.com/" target="_blank">TFR</a>, <a href="http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/recommendations/article/State-Propositions-Voters-should-vote-for-1-and-12292126.php&cmpid=twitter-premium" target="_blank">Chron</a>, <a href="http://www.lptexas.org/2017-lptexas-voter-guide" target="_blank">LPT</a>, <a href="http://progresstexas.org/blog/2017-statewide-constitutional-ballot-guide" target="_blank">Progress TX</a>, <br />
Against:<br />
Neutral: <a href="https://apps.texasrealestate.com/public/ga/pages/nov-7-2017.cfm" target="_blank">TAR</a>, <br />
<h2>
Prop 2</h2>
<h3>
Text </h3>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"The constitutional amendment to establish a lower amount for expenses that can be charged to a borrower and removing certain financing expense limitations for a home equity loan, establishing certain authorized lenders to make a home equity loan, changing certain options for the refinancing of home equity loans, changing the threshold for an advance of a home equity line of credit, and allowing home equity loans on agricultural homesteads." </span><br />
<h3>
What's this trying to do?</h3>
When the Texas Constitution was written in 1876 the framers were
highly suspicious of banks. The nation had just come out of a major
banking crisis. Most of the constitutional framers were deeply connected
to farming either as farmers or ranchers themselves or as professionals
that provided services to farmers and ranchers. They had just seen
their friends and neighbors lose homes and livelihoods to banks who
repossessed over-financed properties. Accordingly, from its inception, the Texas Constitution has heavily regulated banking practices, requiring many changes to those regulations to be approved by the voters.<br />
<br />
Prop 2 reduces the fee cap on home equity loans from 3 to 2 percent. While on the surface this would seem to be a good thing for homeowners the legislation also exempts a number of fees currently covered from the cap, including appraisals by third parties, property surveys, state premiums for title insurance and some title examination reports. There is nothing in Prop 2 that would prevent the total cost of home equity fees from rising due to these exemptions. Prop 2 also allows home equity loans to be refinanced as other financial instruments under certain conditions. This would give homeowners more flexibility to decide how best to structure their debt, but it also opens the door to homeowners, accustomed to the significant consumer protections afforded by home equity loans, converting their debt in ways that cause them to lose those protections unaware. As we saw with the housing crisis of '08, unscrupulous banks can sometimes push people to make poor decisions about their debt. A highly informed homeowner may be able to save money through this kind of refinancing under the right conditions, but it also creates new risks.<br />
<br />
Prop 2 also cleans up a provision in the law that can sometimes cause people who have been approved for a home equity line of credit from accessing those funds if the total debt on the house exceeds 50% of its value. This provision is unique to Texas and can create headaches mid renovation that cause homeowners to spend more money, and go deeper in debt, than they planned. Additionally, it revokes a long standing prohibition on home equity loans for most agricultural properties (this can be an issue if your house is on your farm) and expands the types of financial institutions that can make home equity loans. <br />
<h3>
How I'll Be Voting </h3>
There's some good things in Prop 2 that need to happen, but there's also a lot of red flags. Unfortunately we the voters don't get to pick and choose what parts we like. We have to vote for or against the whole thing. It's telling to me who showed up to testify for this legislation during the session: The Texas Association of Realtors, The Independent Bankers Association of Texas, JPMorgan Chase, The Texas Association of Realtors, The Texas Bankers Association, the Texas Credit Union Association, The Texas Land Title Association, The Texas Mortgage Bankers Association... ...that's a whole lot of banks. What I don't see is a lot of consumer advocacy groups. Only the Texas Farm Bureau who clearly likes that provision that allows home equity loans for agricultural property (one of the provisions I like and makes sense to me).<br />
<br />
Granted, there wasn't much testimony against the legislation either, just a couple of people representing themselves, but I have to wonder if the authors, Sen. Hancock and Rep. Parker, bothered to reach out to organizations that work to protect homeowners. Where's the Urban League? Where's the Texas Community Association Advocates? Did this whole thing get written with only banks at the table? Given the glaring hole in the purported reduction of the fee cap, I suspect that yes, only banks were at the table when this thing was written. Prop 2 seems to be opening the door to banking practices that exploit consumers and drive up the costs of homes. I'll be voting <b>AGAINST</b> this one.<br />
<h3>
Endorsements</h3>
For:<span id="goog_1796581049"></span> <a href="https://gawtp.com/state-constitutional-amendment-information-from-empower-texans/" target="_blank">Empower TX</a>, <a href="http://www.teaparty911.com/" target="_blank">TFR</a>, <a href="https://apps.texasrealestate.com/public/ga/pages/nov-7-2017.cfm" target="_blank">TAR</a>, <br />
Against: <a href="http://tcclc.org/?zone=%2Funionactive%2Fview_article.cfm&HomeID=675412&page=Volunteer20for20Voter20Registration20Drive#.Weu0EBhRtgS.facebook" target="_blank">TCCLC</a>, <a href="http://www.texasaft.org/action/elections/the-lowdown-on-seven-state-constitutional-amendments-on-november-7-ballot/" target="_blank">TxAFT</a>, <a href="http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/recommendations/article/State-Propositions-Voters-should-vote-for-1-and-12292126.php&cmpid=twitter-premium" target="_blank">Chron</a>, <a href="http://www.lptexas.org/2017-lptexas-voter-guide" target="_blank">LPT</a>, <a href="http://progresstexas.org/blog/2017-statewide-constitutional-ballot-guide" target="_blank">Progress TX</a>, <br />
Neutral: <br />
<h2>
Prop 3</h2>
<h3>
Text </h3>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"The constitutional amendment limiting the service of certain officeholders appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate after the expiration of the person's term of office." </span><br />
<h3>
What's this trying to do?</h3>
We like public input on government in Texas. Got an opinion about proposed legislation? You can testify in committee and speak directly to your lawmakers about it! Don't like a local judge? Unlike most states you can vote them out of office in Texas! Accordingly the state has set up hundreds of volunteer boards that provide recommendations on how the state should run. These volunteers are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Most of the appointees serve six year terms. In theory they have to be reappointed after their term is up, but a "holdover" provision allows them to stick around until their replacement is confirmed. The provision is there to allow for continuity of service and ensure that public input continues to shape public policy. In practice some appointees have stuck around for years, continuing to sit on these boards long after the terms of their appointment are up. Prop 3 limits the holdover provision to only allow these volunteers to continue to serve without reappointment until the end of the next regular legislative session after their term expires (late May/early June of odd numbered years).<br />
<h3>
How I'll Be Voting</h3>
If we had better elected officials this wouldn't be an issue. Why isn't the Governor just re-appointing these volunteers for another term? Would the Senate (which, remember, routinely has to inform the House that they're taking a long weekend during the legislative session) be too hard pressed to confirm those re-appointments? Particularly if the volunteers are doing such a good job that currently they continue to serve for years after their appointments expire? These boards are influential. They can shape policy and legislation in important ways and the only check we have on the influence of the Governor in appointing their members is the Senate's confirmation power. The current practice of holding over these appointments for years limits the public's ability to check the power of the appointees (ironic, given that the point of the boards is to enable public input). In a perfect world I'd say elect a new Governor and Lt. Governor who do their job and that way we won't have to amend the Constitution, but we don't live in a perfect world. Without a turnover in the state's leadership on the horizon I've got to vote <b>FOR </b>Prop 3.<br />
<h3>
Endorsements</h3>
For:<span id="goog_1796581049"></span> <a href="https://gawtp.com/state-constitutional-amendment-information-from-empower-texans/" target="_blank">Empower TX</a>, <a href="http://www.teaparty911.com/" target="_blank">TFR</a>, <a href="http://www.lptexas.org/2017-lptexas-voter-guide" target="_blank">LPT</a>, <br />
Against: <a href="http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/recommendations/article/State-Propositions-Voters-should-vote-for-1-and-12292126.php&cmpid=twitter-premium" target="_blank">Chron</a>, <br />
Neutral: <a href="http://tcclc.org/?zone=%2Funionactive%2Fview_article.cfm&HomeID=675412&page=Volunteer20for20Voter20Registration20Drive#.Weu0EBhRtgS.facebook" target="_blank">TCCLC</a>, <a href="http://www.texasaft.org/action/elections/the-lowdown-on-seven-state-constitutional-amendments-on-november-7-ballot/" target="_blank">TxAFT</a>, <a href="https://apps.texasrealestate.com/public/ga/pages/nov-7-2017.cfm" target="_blank">TAR</a>, <a href="http://progresstexas.org/blog/2017-statewide-constitutional-ballot-guide" target="_blank">Progress TX</a>, <br />
<h2>
Prop 4</h2>
<h3>
Text </h3>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to require a court to provide notice to the attorney general of a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute and authorizing the legislature to prescribe a waiting period before the court may enter a judgment holding the statute unconstitutional." </span><br />
<h3>
What's this trying to do?</h3>
In 2011 the Texas Legislature passed HB 2425 (Thompson/Hegar) creating Government Code 402.010, requiring courts to notify the Attorney General if a party to a case makes a motion to challenge the constitutionality of Texas law and allow the Attorney General 45 days to intervene before rendering final judgment. The bill passed with little fanfare and no opposition. The only testimony offered in support of HB 2425 in either the House or Senate committee hearings was from Jonathan Saenz of Texas Values, an anti-LGBT group.<br />
<br />
In 2013 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals<a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2013/pd-1560-12.html" target="_blank"> ruled that an unrelated law </a>concerning online solicitation of a minor was unconstitutionally broad. The Attorney General filed a motion for rehearing on the grounds that the trial court had not provided the Attorney General with the notice required under Government Code 402.010. In 2014 the Court of Criminal Appeals denied the motion for rehearing and found Government Code 402.010 unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution’s guarantee of separation of powers and prohibition against one branch of government (the legislative) attempting to exercise the powers of another (the judicial). Said the court (quoting Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State): “Our state's express provision 'reflects a belief on the part of those who drafted and adopted our state constitution that one of the greatest threats to liberty is the accumulation of excessive power in a single branch of government.'"<br />
<br />
If passed Prop 4 would amend the Constitution to require the notification of the Attorney General if a challenge to the constitutionality is made in a criminal case.<br />
<h3>
How I'll Be Voting</h3>
It's tempting to just take the support of Texas Values as a reason to vote against Prop 4, and frankly the support of an organization dedicated to depriving people of the equal protection of the law is reason enough to look twice at legislation, but there are other reasons to vote against Prop 4. Trail courts don't generally consider the constitutionality of the law. Their job is to establish the facts of the case and determine how the law applies to it. Appeals courts are responsible to asking if the law is constitutional, but in order to appeal a case based on constitutionality the question has to have been first raised in the trial court. That means that any decent criminal defense attorney should raise those questions in the trial court if there is any chance at all they might create the grounds for an appeal. Under Prop 4 every time that happens it could trigger up to a 45 day delay in the case. Most people who find themselves in criminal courts aren't murderers (or people who solicit minors online), and the basis of our criminal justice system is that all of them are innocent until proven otherwise. Creating new delays creates new costs. It means that people defending themselves in court have to do so for longer which means they may stay in jail longer awaiting trial, or may have to comply with the terms of their bail longer, restricting their travel, costing money and potentially affecting their employment and family. District Attorneys are agents of the state and are just as capable of (and just as responsible for) defending the state's laws as the Attorney General. There is no reason why the additional costs and time of a delay to allow the AG to intervene is necessary.<br />
<br />
Additionally, just as Props 1 and 6 are about an ongoing trend of passing costs down on local governments Prop 4 is part of a trend of consolidating power at the state level. Over the last few years we've seen more and more legislation designed to expand the powers of the Attorney General. The framers of the Texas Constitution purposefully created a diffuse executive branch with powers split between multiple state-wide elected officials and local governments. Prop 4 punctures that separation. I'm strongly <b>AGAINST</b> Prop 4 and will be voting no.<br />
<h3>
Endorsements</h3>
For:<span id="goog_1796581049"></span> <a href="https://gawtp.com/state-constitutional-amendment-information-from-empower-texans/" target="_blank">Empower TX</a>, <a href="http://www.teaparty911.com/" target="_blank">TFR</a>, <a href="http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/recommendations/article/State-propositions-Voters-should-cast-their-12295070.php&cmpid=twitter-premium" target="_blank">Chron</a>, <br />
Against: <a href="http://tcclc.org/?zone=%2Funionactive%2Fview_article.cfm&HomeID=675412&page=Volunteer20for20Voter20Registration20Drive#.Weu0EBhRtgS.facebook" target="_blank">TCCLC</a>, <a href="http://www.texasaft.org/action/elections/the-lowdown-on-seven-state-constitutional-amendments-on-november-7-ballot/" target="_blank">TxAFT</a>, <a href="http://www.lptexas.org/2017-lptexas-voter-guide" target="_blank">LPT</a>, <a href="http://progresstexas.org/blog/2017-statewide-constitutional-ballot-guide" target="_blank">Progress TX</a>, <br />
Neutral: <a href="https://apps.texasrealestate.com/public/ga/pages/nov-7-2017.cfm" target="_blank">TAR</a>, <br />
<h2>
Prop 5</h2>
<h3>
Text </h3>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"The constitutional amendment on professional sports team charitable foundations conducting charitable raffles." </span><br />
<h3>
What's this trying to do?</h3>
In 2015 Texas voters approved a Constitutional amendment allowing the 10 major sports teams in the state to hold charitable raffles at games. Typically these raffles are set up as 50/50 games with half the proceeds going to the winner and the other half going to charity. The raffles are administered by non-profits set up by the teams; the team itself does not receive any money. Prop 5 expands that program to include more kinds of sports and removes a requirement that the non-profit holding the raffle had to exist before 2016. The legislature originally created this requirement to prevent charities being created for no other reason than to hold raffles. The intent was to only allow non-profits that were already up and running to participate, but with the expansion of the program under Prop 5 it might prevent smaller teams that don't already have a charity from participating. <br />
<br />
The legislation only enables the legislature to allow the games. HB 3125, also passed by the lege this spring, creates the details of how that works. Because the details are in statute and not the constitutional amendment if abuses of the system develop the legislature can make adjustments, or even revoke the whole program, without going back to the voters.<br />
<h3>
How I'll Be Voting</h3>
How you feel about Prop 5 really comes down to how you feel about gambling. If you're opposed to gambling and feel the state should do everything it can to keep it out of the public sphere then you should oppose Prop 5. For me, I think it's important to note that Prop 5 evens the playing field (no pun intended) and allows teams that are attractive to a broader cross-section of the state to participate in charitable raffles. Currently WNBA teams can't participate, neither can our many professional soccer teams or the minor league baseball teams that dot our suburbs. I'm not a huge fan of charitable gambling. I think it masks a vice as a virtue and I'm personally more likely to make a donation to a cause I support than buy a raffle ticket, but that's me. Prop 5 takes a privilege that was formerly just for the charities favored by the millionaire owners of professional sports teams and makes it just slightly more accessible. I think that's a good thing and will be voting <b>FOR</b> Prop 5.<br />
<h3>
Endorsements</h3>
For: <a href="http://tcclc.org/?zone=%2Funionactive%2Fview_article.cfm&HomeID=675412&page=Volunteer20for20Voter20Registration20Drive#.Weu0EBhRtgS.facebook" target="_blank">TCCLC</a>, <a href="http://www.texasaft.org/action/elections/the-lowdown-on-seven-state-constitutional-amendments-on-november-7-ballot/" target="_blank">TxAFT</a>, <a href="http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/recommendations/article/State-propositions-Voters-should-cast-their-12295070.php&cmpid=twitter-premium" target="_blank">Chron</a>, <a href="http://progresstexas.org/blog/2017-statewide-constitutional-ballot-guide" target="_blank">Progress TX</a>, <br />
Against:<span id="goog_1796581049"></span> <a href="https://gawtp.com/state-constitutional-amendment-information-from-empower-texans/" target="_blank">Empower TX</a>, <a href="http://www.teaparty911.com/" target="_blank">TFR</a>, <a href="http://www.lptexas.org/2017-lptexas-voter-guide" target="_blank">LPT</a>, <br />
Neutral: <a href="https://apps.texasrealestate.com/public/ga/pages/nov-7-2017.cfm" target="_blank">TAR</a>, <br />
<h2>
Prop 6</h2>
<h3>
Text </h3>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a first responder who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty."</span><br />
<h3>
What's this trying to do?</h3>
As with Prop 1 this amendment continues a trend of reducing the property taxes for specific vulnerable populations while failing to address the fundamental flaws in our tax system. Prop 6, along with SB 15 which creates the details of how the exemption created by Prop 6 will work, will completely exempt from property taxes the homes of surviving spouses for first responders who were enrolled in the state's employee retirement system and who do not remarry. Not surprisingly, the legislation is supported by all of the major professional associations for first responders.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/fiscalnotes/html/SB00015E.htm" target="_blank">Legislative Budget Board</a> created a projection of how much of a reduction in property tax revenue Prop 6 will create over the next 5 years. By 2022 Prop 6 will cost the state more than 2 million dollars a year. That's $1,258,000 from schools, $364,000 from counties, $361,000 from cities and $274,000 from other local government services. As mentioned with Prop 1, local governments are very limited in how they can make up the difference. Generally their only options are to increase property tax rates, increase fees for services or increase fines for breaking local laws, all of which contributes to Texas' regressive taxing structure.<br />
<h3>
How I'll be voting</h3>
I said on Prop 1 that at some point we the voters need to draw a line in the sand on these specific carve outs to the property tax. I understand the sacrifices made and challenges faced by the surviving spouses of first responders. Losing a spouse is a terrible situation and this legislation will help keep this population of surviving spouses from potentially losing their homes as well. But unlike Prop 1, it comes with quite a price tag. That price will be paid by everyone else, including a whole lot of other surviving spouses. We need to reduce our property taxes, but the best way to do that is find progressive ways of raising revenue at the state level and stop pushing costs down on local governments. For me, this is where I draw the line. I'll be voting <b>AGAINST</b> Prop 6.<br />
<h3>
Endorsements</h3>
For: <a href="http://tcclc.org/?zone=%2Funionactive%2Fview_article.cfm&HomeID=675412&page=Volunteer20for20Voter20Registration20Drive#.Weu0EBhRtgS.facebook" target="_blank">TCCLC</a>, <a href="http://www.texasaft.org/action/elections/the-lowdown-on-seven-state-constitutional-amendments-on-november-7-ballot/" target="_blank">TxAFT</a>, <a href="http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/recommendations/article/State-propositions-Voters-should-cast-their-12295070.php&cmpid=twitter-premium" target="_blank">Chron</a>, <a href="http://progresstexas.org/blog/2017-statewide-constitutional-ballot-guide" target="_blank">Progress TX</a>, <br />
Against: <a href="http://www.lptexas.org/2017-lptexas-voter-guide" target="_blank">LPT</a>, <br />
Neutral: <span id="goog_1796581049"></span> <a href="https://gawtp.com/state-constitutional-amendment-information-from-empower-texans/" target="_blank">Empower TX</a>, <a href="http://www.teaparty911.com/" target="_blank">TFR</a>, <a href="https://apps.texasrealestate.com/public/ga/pages/nov-7-2017.cfm" target="_blank">TAR</a>, <br />
<h2>
Prop 7</h2>
<h3>
Text </h3>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"The constitutional amendment relating to legislative authority to permit credit unions and other financial institutions to award prizes by lot to promote savings."</span><br />
<h3>
What's this trying to do?</h3>
The Texas Constitution does not allow raffles and lotteries unless they are conducted by the state, or by specific non-profits in specific situations (expanding that list of non-profits and situations was the subject of Prop 5). Prop 7 adds a new category to the list: banks and credit unions, and a new specific situation: prize-linked savings accounts. If passed, Prop 7 (and its accompanying legislation HB 471) would allow banks to offer prizes drawn from a list of people who made deposits in a special kind of savings account. The money deposited continues to belong to the depositor and can be withdrawn at any time and is not use to pay the prize. Prize-linked savings accounts have been used in other states as a way to encourage people who would not otherwise save their money to do so.<br />
<br />
Unlike Prop 2, Prop 7 is supported by both the banking industry and advocates who work to ensure that people aren't exploited by the banking industry. In addition to The Independent Bankers Association of Texas, The Texas Credit Union Association and The Credit Union Coalition of Texas (Yes, those are two different groups for some reason) the legislation is supported by RAISE Texas, United Ways of Texas and (one of my favorite advocacy organizations and one that I really trust) Texas Impact.<br />
<br />
There's some disagreement about whether Prop 7 is actually needed. Since the deposits are not paid to the bank organizing the game but continue to belong to the depositor prize-linked savings accounts aren't strictly gambling and probably don't violate the constitutional prohibition on games of chance. However two years ago Gov. Abbot vetoed HB 1628 which created an identical program to the one enabled by Prop 7 on the grounds that it would violate the constitution. That's a weird interpretation, but he's the Governor and he gets to use whatever grounds he'd like for his veto. Prop 7 would clarify any confusion that might exist and make it clear that prize-linked savings accounts are allowed.<br />
<h3>
How I'll Be Voting</h3>
Just like with Prop 5 how you feel about Prop 7 comes down to how you feel about gambling (and how some people feel about gambling might explain Gov. Abbot's veto two years ago), but in this case there is absolutely no risk to the player. Anything deposited in a prize-linked savings account continues to belong to the depositor. If that helps make saving for tomorrow more attractive to some people then I can't imagine why we shouldn't allow it. I'll be voting <b>FOR</b> Prop 7.<br />
<h3>
Endorsements</h3>
For: <a href="http://tcclc.org/?zone=%2Funionactive%2Fview_article.cfm&HomeID=675412&page=Volunteer20for20Voter20Registration20Drive#.Weu0EBhRtgS.facebook" target="_blank">TCCLC</a>, <a href="http://www.texasaft.org/action/elections/the-lowdown-on-seven-state-constitutional-amendments-on-november-7-ballot/" target="_blank">TxAFT</a>, <a href="http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/recommendations/article/State-propositions-Voters-should-cast-their-12295070.php&cmpid=twitter-premium" target="_blank">Chron</a>, <a href="http://progresstexas.org/blog/2017-statewide-constitutional-ballot-guide" target="_blank">Progress TX</a>, <br />
Against: <a href="http://www.lptexas.org/2017-lptexas-voter-guide" target="_blank">LPT</a>, <br />
Neutral: <span id="goog_1796581049"></span> <a href="https://gawtp.com/state-constitutional-amendment-information-from-empower-texans/" target="_blank">Empower TX</a>, <a href="http://www.teaparty911.com/" target="_blank">TFR</a>, <a href="https://apps.texasrealestate.com/public/ga/pages/nov-7-2017.cfm" target="_blank">TAR</a>, DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-5231930409781425672017-09-11T09:37:00.000-05:002018-05-14T09:39:51.547-05:00Of Undocumented Immigrants and the Moses Story1:8 Now there arose up a new president over the United States, which knew not hardship.<br /> 1:9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of undocumented immigrants are more and mightier than we:<br />
1:10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it
come to pass, that, when there falleth out any economic hardship, they
rise up, and compete against us, and so get them up out of the land.<br /> 1:11 Therefore he did set over them law enforcement to <span class="text_exposed_show">afflict them with their burdens. Yet they built for the nation, and educated themselves and delivered many public services.<br />
1:12 But the more the law afflicted them, the more they multiplied and
grew. And the President and his followers were grieved because of the
children of immigrants.<br /> 1:13 And the United States made the children of undocumented immigrants to serve with rigour:<br />
1:14 And the law made their lives bitter with hard regulation, in
education, and in housing, and in all manner of service in the field:
all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.<br />
1:15 And the president spake to the administrators of cities, who were
called the mayors, and the police chiefs and the school superintendents,
<br /> 1:16 And he said, When ye do the duties of your office to the
children of undocumented immigrants, and see them in your cities; if
they be undocumented themselves you shall turn them over to me, that I
may rid them from the land.<br /> 1:17 But the administrators feared God,
and did not as the president commanded them, but spared the children of
undocumented immigrants.<br /> ...<br /> 1:21 And it came to pass, because
the administrators feared God, that God made for them great cities, rich
in culture and blessed by the children of undocumented immigrants.<br />
1:22 And so the president and the state legislatures bound all the
cities, saying every undocumented immigrant that interacts with the city
you shall turn them over to me, that I may rid them from the land.</span>DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-52516393931688942732017-08-08T09:34:00.000-05:002018-05-14T09:35:04.545-05:00On the Passage of HB 214, Gay Men Should Be Paying AttentionDear fellow gay men:<br />
Today the Texas House passed HB 214, a bill that
prohibits health insurance paying for most abortions, requiring people
to carry additional insurance (which Rep. Moody coined "rape insurance")
ahead of time or pay for abortions out of pocket. Why should you care?
Well, for one because it's an attack on the rights of other people, but
for two because the rational used to support the bill is that some
people feel that paying into an insurance risk pool that<span class="text_exposed_show">
might then pay for abortion violates their religion and, it was argued,
forcing people to carry "rape insurance" will encourage them to "be
more responsible." Now imagine how those same people who don't want to
pay into insurance pools that pay for abortion feel about PrEP, or about
HIV meds. Imagine how they feel about using surrogate mothers to grow
your family. Imagine how they feel about supplemental insurance that
covers spousal bereavement or care for same-sex couples... Right now
uterus-having folk are on the front-line of a battle to reshape
healthcare as a tool of right wing policy and everything we've fought
for for the last 48 years is at risk. Speak up! Call your state
representative and senator and tell them what you think.</span>DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-27691669946611863802017-06-27T08:43:00.002-05:002018-05-14T09:59:21.113-05:00Interview with KPFT 90.1's Queer VoicesThe Texas Legislature returns to the pink dome on July 18th to tackle 20 issues selected by Gov. Abbot for the special sessions, including legislation to restrict transgender Texans access to public spaces. KPFT's Queer Voices invited me over yesterday to talk about special sessions, how they work and what to expect. Listen below.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe height="100" src="https://drive.google.com/a/danielwilliamstx.com/file/d/0B3lClcWY9L2cNFF3c3VOVExuTlU/preview" width="400"></iframe></div>
<br />
KPFT is in the middle of their summer pledge drive right now, so if you appreciate these kinds of conversations and progressive radio consider <a href="http://kpft.org/support-community-radio/" target="_blank">making a contribution</a> and let them know you appreciate Queer Voices. DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-91276268324569035752016-11-18T10:33:00.000-06:002016-11-18T10:33:17.424-06:00Konni Burton's SB 242 Will Kill Children<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrLGHNQeBCywalW_Wovpuufmx_dA-W5Dq1CN35dUriUwBRaGiz2DTUQT80EYmAmBLqk8sgT7IfCsB0vnGy7ahNIeA4nlagWHNiG0XetyUPz_ibsWj3I_Wmyqfx4TZajXxnNycjd2HkQLnF/s1600/Burton_Action%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrLGHNQeBCywalW_Wovpuufmx_dA-W5Dq1CN35dUriUwBRaGiz2DTUQT80EYmAmBLqk8sgT7IfCsB0vnGy7ahNIeA4nlagWHNiG0XetyUPz_ibsWj3I_Wmyqfx4TZajXxnNycjd2HkQLnF/s1600/Burton_Action%255B1%255D.jpg" /></a></div>
For the last year and a half people have been asking me if I think someone in Texas will file a bill like North Carolina's notorious HB 2 to override nondiscrimination ordinances and set up the potty police - and for the last year and half I've been telling them that yes, that bill will be filed (probably a couple of versions of it) and yes, we'll have to work hard to defeat it, but that's not the bill that scares me. The bill that scares me, and it will be filed by someone out of Fort Worth, is a bill to force schools to out kids to their parents. It will be hard to fight, because it will be shrouded in a veil of parent's right to know about their kids, and, if passed, it will lead to children's deaths.<br />
<br />
The bill I fear most has been filed by Sen. Konni Burton (R-Fort Worth). As John Wright reports over at the <a href="http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/texas_lawmaker_wants_to_force_schools_to_out_lgbt_students_to_parents" target="_blank">New Civil Rights Project</a>, <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=SB242" target="_blank">SB 242</a> would require "general knowledge regarding the parent's child possessed by an employee of a school district" to be given to the parent, failure to deliver the information would result in the firing or suspension of the employee.<br />
<br />
SB 242 radically expands an existing provision that provides parents access to their children's school records, and makes it apply to every interaction a school employee has with a child. An on-the-face reading of the bill would require a teacher to contact a parent if they became aware that a student had a zit, or a crush on a classmate, or really wanted a certain pair of sneakers. If not the teacher would be fired.<br />
<br />
While the poor drafting and wide scope of the bill make it risible. Burton's sinister intent in filing SB 242 is chilling. In a <a href="http://konniburton.com/2016/11/sd10-lege-agenda-parents-right-to-know/" target="_blank">press release</a> Burton says she filed the bill in response to a policy adopted by Fort Worth ISD on how to sensitively and reasonably accommodate transgender students. Her stated intent in filing the legislation is to out queer youth.<br />
<br />
And that will get kids killed.<br />
<ul>
<li>The Suicide Prevention Resource Center estimated that between <a href="http://www.sprc.org/library/SPRC_LGBT_Youth.pdf" target="_blank">30-40% of LGBT youth have attempted suicide</a>. Family rejection is thought to be a major contributing factor.</li>
<li>According to the <a href="http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Durso-Gates-LGBT-Homeless-Youth-Survey-July-2012.pdf" target="_blank">William's Institute</a> 40% of homeless youth are LGBT and the primary cause of their homelessness is family rejection.</li>
<li>One statistically proven way to reduce the rate of LGBT teen suicide is the<a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1943-278X.1986.tb00730.x" target="_blank"> availability of Gay-Straight Alliances</a> in schools. Burton's bill would require the teacher sponsor of those clubs to report the attendance of any student to their parents.</li>
<li>And threats can come directly from parents as well</li>
<ul>
<li>In 2015 a Ohio father <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2956413/Father-stabbed-death-transgender-daughter-22-calling-911-saying-killed-fellow-cult-members.html" target="_blank">killed his trans daugher</a></li>
<li>In 2014 <a href="http://konniburton.com/2016/11/sd10-lege-agenda-parents-right-to-know/" target="_blank">a Houston father murdered his lesbian daughter and her girlfriend</a></li>
</ul>
</ul>
Teachers are there to teach our kids, not spy on them. Burton's vision of an Orwellian school environment where every move is reported is nightmarish - but worse, it's deadly.<br />
<br />
Burton is taking a "Legislative Survey" to learn what people think of her legislation, you can find it <a href="http://konniburton.com/survey/" target="_blank">HERE</a>. You can comment on her press release <a href="http://konniburton.com/2016/11/sd10-lege-agenda-parents-right-to-know/" target="_blank">HERE</a>, visit her Facebook <a href="https://www.facebook.com/KonniBurtonTX/" target="_blank">HERE,</a> or find her on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/KonniBurton" target="_blank">HERE</a>. <br />
<br />Daniel Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08005254570208749657noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-70438857660126274322016-11-16T08:29:00.000-06:002016-11-16T08:29:07.843-06:00HB 331 Equalization of Romeo and Juliet and Consent Education<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9vV5-i12SdI-sN1u68X7C28WUbQu7XdEkxE-iMX3KGfS64LBsbXQEJPKCT7MxxjJpK_zBZcjy0JR7aMwTtVMIayPc-hNK1zxmpkTSu67biCJ3k3l3JP8NVvntZA7UtO1tRUi68AumqdnO/s1600/2410%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9vV5-i12SdI-sN1u68X7C28WUbQu7XdEkxE-iMX3KGfS64LBsbXQEJPKCT7MxxjJpK_zBZcjy0JR7aMwTtVMIayPc-hNK1zxmpkTSu67biCJ3k3l3JP8NVvntZA7UtO1tRUi68AumqdnO/s1600/2410%255B1%255D.jpg" /></a></div>
Rep. Mary González (D-Clint) on Monday refiled her Romeo and Juliet legislation with some updates not included in her previous versions of the bill.<br />
<br />
It is a felony in Texas to engage in sexual contact with a person under
the age of 17. However the law creates an “out” in situations where the
contact was consensual, the parties involved are over the age of 14, the
parties are within three years of each other’s age and are of the
opposite sex - called the "Romeo and Juliet defense." This is a logical approach to the reality that adolescents
sometimes make sexual decisions that adults may wish they hadn’t made,
but that adolescents have been making since the beginning of time. Those decisions should be the concern of parents, not a matter for the police. This
“out” does not exist for teen sweethearts who are dating someone of the
same sex creating a risk that a teenager may be sent to prison and
forced to register as a sex offender for becoming physical with their
sweetheart.<br />
<br />
A similar inequity in the law in Kansas was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Limon" target="_blank">found unconstitutional in 2005</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=HB331" target="_blank">HB 331</a> equalizes the defense, places in statute the existing practice of not reporting teen relationships that fall under the defense to the police, and requires the Texas Education Agency to make curriculum on consent available to school districts. The bill would not require the school districts to use the curriculum. The provisions clarifying the duty to report and creating consent curriculum have not been included in previous versions of the bill.<br />
<br />
González has filed Romeo and Juliet equalization legislation every session since she was first elected in 2012. Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) filed it prior to that. González successfully navigated the bill out of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee in both 2013 and in 2015 when it passed committee unanimously. It received a vote on the House floor in 2015 but was defeated <a href="http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/84r/pdf/84RDAY70FINAL.PDF#page=79" target="_blank">51 to 79</a>.<br />
<br />
When the bill went up for a vote last session Rep. Ken Sheets (R-Dallas) amended it to include a provision that removed the availability of the Romeo and Juliet Defense if the minor was given alcohol or other drugs that made them unable to physically resist sexual assault. That amendment is redundant because mental impairment already precludes the ability to consent (a component of the defense) whether or not the alleged victim physically resists, but one wonders why the amendment, which González accepted on the floor, was not included in this new draft.<br />
<br />
HB 331 will likely be referred to the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee which will likely be half first-term members who didn't vote on this the first time around. So there's no guarantee it will pass committee the way it has the two previous sessions. But González is an extraordinary adept member and has a real talent for navigating her agenda through the process so I am very hopeful.Daniel Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08005254570208749657noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-82161407537718810632016-11-15T11:06:00.000-06:002016-11-15T11:06:02.193-06:00HB 258: Boycott North Carolina and Arkansas<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo84KZVcRoMhvNpbS3A6jrzITZsMKUzYdYRJtbxSXLNmCPUKTED4xGQdxapYQOoZ49pttiVmbeXzkMb2AuRN0SJld2a2efByx7pLSCaA3ZPWYixy9bmqhEmKYCKscuqF3UQczLP8LLCxHK/s1600/2150%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo84KZVcRoMhvNpbS3A6jrzITZsMKUzYdYRJtbxSXLNmCPUKTED4xGQdxapYQOoZ49pttiVmbeXzkMb2AuRN0SJld2a2efByx7pLSCaA3ZPWYixy9bmqhEmKYCKscuqF3UQczLP8LLCxHK/s1600/2150%255B1%255D.jpg" /></a></div>
Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) is one of my favorite people. His office is consistently one of the strongest and most vocal advocates for equality in the Texas Capitol and he's further proved his commitment by filing HB 258 which would prohibit the State of Texas from doing business with companies based in states that have passed legislation overriding local non-discrimination ordinances or legislation that allows or requires discrimination against same-sex married couples.<br />
<br />
By my count three states have passed laws that fit that description:<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2015/2015R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=sb202" target="_blank">Arkansas 90R SB 202</a> - which attempted to override local non-discrimination ordinances but is now tied up in court.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0632.pdf" target="_blank">Tennessee 107R SB 632</a> - which overrode local non-discrimination ordinances and defined gender in all laws as being the gender on a birth certificate.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2015E2&BillID=HB+2" target="_blank">North Carolina 2016(2) HB2</a> - which overrode local non-discrimination ordinances and required the use of restrooms based on Gender assigned at birth.</li>
</ul>
HB 258 only applies to state's where the law in question went into effect after June 26th, 2016 (the date of the Supreme Court's ruling in <i>Obergerfell</i>). So Tennessee would not be included because their bill went into effect in 2011, but Arkansas (whose bill went into effect on July 22, 2015) and North Carolina (March 23, 2016) would.<br />
<br />
Ironically, on the same day Anchia filed his bill Sen. Hall filed his own versions of <a href="http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/texas_gop_lawmaker_files_north_carolina_style_bill_to_undo_local_lgbt_protections" target="_blank">North Carolina's legislation</a>. In the unlikely event both were to pass the State of Texas would be prohibited from doing business with itself.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.twcnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2016/04/22/hb-2-has-cost-state-1750-jobs.html" target="_blank">It's been estimated that</a> North Carolina's bill has cost the state more than "1750 jobs and more than $77 million of investments and visitor spending." Gov. Pat McCrory's defeat in his re-election bid last week has largely been credited to voter dissatisfaction with his defense of the bill.<br />
<br />
HB 258 will likely be referred to the House Committee on State Affairs, along with most of the other LGBT-related bills (pro and con). I would be surprised if it received a hearing, but by merely filing the bill Anchia has contributed to the conversation about the negative fiscal impact of discriminatory laws.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Daniel Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08005254570208749657noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-64219974233117451052016-11-15T09:16:00.000-06:002016-11-15T09:16:58.705-06:00HB 225: Employment Non-Discrimination <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ_wZxdWfL-YtOazXhc3N2oMri6Q-toxMQYDbdWORcv02T8Y7Ud0qVzUjW9orGTi0Pmd2K7we4SxKl6O10OWJsg_ZB1EYmSG2T_axMnT3dRp_EbIgyEzw6WhyphenhyphenT2_D0DkcHLvMLXITZC_Cj/s1600/3345%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ_wZxdWfL-YtOazXhc3N2oMri6Q-toxMQYDbdWORcv02T8Y7Ud0qVzUjW9orGTi0Pmd2K7we4SxKl6O10OWJsg_ZB1EYmSG2T_axMnT3dRp_EbIgyEzw6WhyphenhyphenT2_D0DkcHLvMLXITZC_Cj/s1600/3345%255B1%255D.jpg" /></a></div>
Rep. Eric Johnson (D-Dallas) refiled his inclusive employment non-discrimination bill on the first day of early filing. Identical legislation has been filed in the House every session since 2007 (<a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=78R&Bill=HB%201136" target="_blank">78R HB 1136</a>, <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=79R&Bill=HB%201515" target="_blank">79R HB 1515</a>, <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=HB%20900" target="_blank">80R HB 900</a>, <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB538">81R HB 538</a>, <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB665">82R HB 665</a>, <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB238" target="_blank">83R HB 238 & HB 1146</a><a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB1146" target="_blank">, </a><a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB627" target="_blank">84 HB 672</a>) and by Johnson for the last two sessions.<br />
<br />
Under current law it is illegal in Texas to discriminate in employment
based on a person’s race, religion, gender, national origin, age, or
disability. It remains legal to discriminate based on a person’s sexual
orientation or gender identity or expression. There is no federal law
prohibiting employment discrimination against the LGBT community
(although, according to a <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2011/06/02/9716/polls-show-huge-public-support-for-gay-and-transgender-workplace-protections/" target="_blank">poll by the Center for American Progress</a>, 9 out of 10 American voters erroneously believe that federal law does provide LGBT people employment protections). <br />
<br />
HB 238 would allow the Texas Workforce Commission's Civil Rights
Division (TWC CRD) to investigate claims of employment discrimination
based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression in the same
way that it investigates claims of discrimination based on the other
protected attributes. The TWC CRD allows individuals who believe they
have experienced prohibited employment discrimination to file a
complaint<a href="http://www.twc.state.tx.us/crd/file_emp.html" target="_blank"> in person in Austin, over the phone, or via notarized form</a>.
If the complaint warrants investigation the TWC CRD pursues it further.
The Legislative Budget Board (an agency of the State of Texas)
estimates that if employment discrimination based on sexual orientation
or gender identity or expression was prohibited that the TWC CRD would
need to investigate <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/fiscalnotes/html/HB00665I.htm" target="_blank">474 credible cases a year</a>.<br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]."><span id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]..[0]">There is a great deal of evidence that employment discrimination is pervasive and widespread in Texas:</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]."><span id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]..[2]">Men
in same-sex relationships in Texas make 9% less on average than their
straight married counterparts according to information from the <a href="http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/TexasCensus2000Snapshot.pdf" target="_blank">Census Bureau</a>,</span></span></span></li>
<li><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]."><span id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]..[4]">Households
in Texas headed by two women make one average 11% less than households
headed by a man and a woman according to information from the <a href="http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/TexasCensus2000Snapshot.pdf" target="_blank">Census Bureau</a>,</span></span></span></li>
<li><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]."><span id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]..[8]"><a href="https://equalityfederation.salsalabs.com/o/35034/images/TEXAS_RESULTS_Tran_Discrimination_Survey_2012.pdf" target="_blank">In a 2010 survey</a> 26% of transgender Texans reported losing a job because of their gender identity or expression.</span></span></span></li>
</ul>
Prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or
gender identity or expression has overwhelming public support. In a <a href="file:///C:/Users/Daniel/AppData/Local/Temp/2013%20Equality%20Texas%20Foundation%20Statewide%20Survey%20Report.pdf" target="_blank">poll </a><a href="file:///C:/Users/Daniel/AppData/Local/Temp/2013%20Equality%20Texas%20Foundation%20Statewide%20Survey%20Report.pdf" target="_blank">conducted by Equality Texas</a>,<br />
<ul>
<li>76% of registered voters in Texas said they support ending employment and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation,</li>
<li>70% said they supported ending employment and housing discrimination for transgender citizens.</li>
</ul>
With the reality of employment discrimination clear, a mechanism already
in place for investigating it and strong public support for addressing
the issue why has the decade long effort to pass
legislation thus far been fruitless? Because there is a disconnect
between the people of the state of Texas and the 183 elected officials
who create laws in Texas. If HB 225 is to become law we must bridge that
disconnect, and the only way to do it is by contacting your members of
the legislature and telling them that you expect their support for HB
225.Daniel Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08005254570208749657noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-46694448939765462016-11-15T08:54:00.000-06:002016-11-15T08:55:35.364-06:00SB 165: Comprehensive Non-DiscriminationSen. Jose Rodriguez (D-El Paso) refiled his comprehensive non-discrimination bill on the first day of early filing. The bill is identical to his SB 856 from last session and has already picked up 3 coauthors: John Whitmire (D-Houston), Kirk Watson (D-Austin) and Sylvia Garcia (D-Houston), all of whom coauthored the same legislation last session.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=SB%20165" target="_blank">SB 165 </a>prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in housing, employment, public accommodations and state employment and contracting. The companions to the housing sections and the employment sections have already been filed in the House by Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio) and Rep. Eric Johnson (D-Dallas), respectively as <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=HB%20192" target="_blank">HB 192</a> and HB <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=HB%20225" target="_blank">225</a>.<br />
<br />
The public accommodation section would be an entirely new part of the code. It prohibits discrimination by a " business or other entity that offers to the general public food, shelter, recreation, or amusement, or any other goods, service, privilege, facility, or accommodation." An exception exists for religious organizations unless the activity engaged in by the religious organization is for profit. This is a standard exception that needs to be in the bill. Without it the law, if passed, would likely be struck down as violating the first amendment. The section also contains an exception for counseling and out-reach services that are designed to support people dealing with coming out, gender transition or the general stresses of living as a queer person in a straight world (so, for instance, a nonprofit that had a support group for gay men, or transgender women, or lesbians over 50 could not be sued for discriminating in the group membership).<br />
<br />
The state contractor section would require the state to only do business with companies that have a nondiscrimination policy that's inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.<br />
<br />
The employment section would allow the Texas Workforce Commission's Civil Rights Division (TWC
CRD) to investigate claims of employment discrimination based on sexual
orientation or gender identity or expression in the same way that it
investigates claims of discrimination based on the other protected
attributes. The TWC CRD allows individuals who believe they have
experienced prohibited employment discrimination to file a complaint<a href="http://www.twc.state.tx.us/crd/file_emp.html" target="_blank"> in person in Austin, over the phone, or via notarized form</a>.
If the complaint warrants investigation the TWC CRD pursues it further.
The Legislative Budget Board (an agency of the State of Texas)
estimates that if employment discrimination based on sexual orientation
or gender identity or expression was prohibited that the TWC CRD would
need to investigate <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/fiscalnotes/html/HB00665I.htm" target="_blank">474 credible cases a year</a>.<br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]."><span id=".reactRoot[147].[1][2][1]{comment428164757239376_4390503}..[1]..[1]..[0].[0][2]..[0]"></span></span></span><br />
Likewise the housing section doesn't create any new legal mechanisms but adds gender identity and
expression and sexual orientation to the existing protections against
housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
disability, familial status and national origin. SB 165 also removes existing language in the protections against
housing discrimination based on "disability" that explicitly states that
the protections do not apply to sexual orientation to a person who is
"a transvestite."<br />
<br />
So what chance does SB 165 have of passing? Slim to none. Lt. Gov Patrick has made it clear that permitting discrimination is a priority for him this session ( literally, <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/14/dan-patrick-texas-democrats-priorities-2017/" target="_blank">he made a list of priorities</a> and permitting discrimination is one of them) and frankly the votes aren't there. But this is only the second time a Texas lawmaker has filed comprehensive nondiscrimination legislation and these things take time. Progress, any progress, particularly in a session that's shaping up to be the most anti-LGBT in a decade, is success.Daniel Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08005254570208749657noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-35733622156649813592016-11-14T15:10:00.000-06:002016-11-14T15:10:14.517-06:00SB 89: Void the Federal Enforcement of the Freedom To MarryEvery once in awhile a bill comes along that's designed to do one horrible thing that winds up doing some other horrible thing. I suspect that's what's going on with Sen. Bob Hall's (R-Canton) <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/SB00089I.htm" target="_blank">SB 89.</a><br />
<br />
The bill would allow the State of Texas to void any federal law that conflicts with the Texas Bill of Rights. I suspect that what Sen. Hall is getting at is Sec. 23 of the Texas Bill of Rights, the "Right to Bear Arms." This would be in keeping with his assertions that the federal government under Pres. Obama is out to take away everyone's guns (no telling how he feels about whether President-Elect Trump will attempt the same). I've reached out to his office for clarity on his motivations for this bill,<br />
<br />
Regardless of his motivation, the affect of the bill (were it to pass (unlikely) and not be immediately struck down by the courts (even less likely)) would be to nullify the affect of the Supreme Court's ruling in <i>Obergerfell</i>, which made the freedom to marry the law of the land.<br />
<br />
One of the truly nasty things about the passage of Texas' anti-marriage constitutional amendment in 2005 is that the amendment was put into the state bill of rights. That's right, right there in Article I, sec 32 of the constitution, between the rights of crime victims and the right to hunt is the rather torturous inclusion of a negative right: the right to not have the right to marry. SB 89 would elevate that amendment above the law of the land, allowing Texas to ignore the freedom to marry.<br />
<br />
In legal terms this is called 'state nullification' and it's utter hokum thoroughly discredited in case law. For example, in <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_v._Aaron" title="Cooper v. Aaron">Cooper v. Aaron</a> </i>the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by the State of Arkansas to nullify the court's decision in <i>Brown v. the Board of Education </i>(recognizing segregation as unconstitutional). State's simply can not ignore federal law whenever they want - which is exactly what Sen. Hall's bill is attempting to do.<br />
<br />
In <i>Cooper</i> the court said<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="headertext">"Article VI of the Constitution makes the
Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice
Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution
as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the
notable case of <em><span class="l-italics"><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html">Marbury v. Madison,</a></span></em> 1 Cranch 137, <span class="l-normaldigitafter"><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html#177">5 U. S. 177</a></span>,
that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic
principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the
law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been
respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable
feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the
interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in
the <em>Brown</em> case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of
the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly
committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3 "to support this
Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in
1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers'"</span></blockquote>
<span class="headertext"> <i>Obergerfell</i>, similarly, is a fourteenth amendment case. Sen. Hall is pulling at the threads of civil rights law in America. His bill threatens to unravel the advances of the last half century.</span>DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-31650326940380274212016-11-14T14:40:00.004-06:002016-11-14T14:41:12.561-06:00HB 92: Repeal of the crime of "Homosexual Conduct"Rep. Joe Moody (D-El Paso) today filed <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=HB92" target="_blank">HB 92</a> to repeal the crime of "homosexual conduct.<br />
<br />
You may recall that in 2004 the Supreme Court of the United States
declared the Texas law against "homosexual conduct" (which is Penal Code 21.06)
unconstitutional in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas">Lawrence v. Texas</a>. The law, although now
unenforceable, is still on the books. While it might seem a simple
matter of housekeeping to remove it thus far most state lawmakers have
seemed too afraid to do anything
about it.<br /><br />In 2009 Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) filed this exact bill (word for word) (<a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB3026">HB 3028</a>).
It was sent to the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee which referred it
to a sub committee. When a committee has a large number of bills to
consider the chair may, at their discretion, appoint sub committees -
which usually look at groups of bills on similar topics and then make
recommendations to the whole committee.<br />
<br />
In 2011 the
bill similarly was filed by both Coleman and Rep. Jessica Farrar
(D-Houston), was not sent to a subcommittee, but died in committee
anyway. In 2013 both again filed the bill and again it died in
committee, but Coleman's bill received a hearing. <br /><br />In 2015 Moody,
for the first time, filed a version of the bill - as did Coleman and
Farrar. This is significant because Moody had served on Criminal
jurisprudence longer than any other member that session. With Moody's
support Coleman's bill was heard again and had some support in the
committee. Unfortunately the hearing didn't occur until May of last
session - much too deep into the session to have sufficient time to pass
the legislature, even if the committee had passed the bill (indeed, it
seems the hearing was designed specifically for bills the committee
wanted to pass, but which were considered politically volatile as a
marijuana legalization bill was heard in the same hearing).<br />
<br />
The
late scheduling of the hearing can be sat squarely at the feet of the
committee chair, Rep. Abel Herrero (D-Corpus Christi). Chairs have
almost complete discretion about when to schedule bills referred to
their committees and the late scheduling of this bill is a black mark on
Rep. Herrero's otherwise stellar record as chair.<br />
<br />
Criminal
Jurisprudence is an interesting committee. It's jurisdiction over
criminal law is not particularly important to a lot of movers and
shakers and most of what it considers is not particularly high profile.
That's why it has one of the most volatile rosters in the House with
almost the entire membership of the committee shifting every session.
Last session only Herrero and Moody returned from the previous session.
That means that the makeup of the committee next session is very likely
to have mostly new members and that most of the new members are likely
to be in their first term. Many of those membersmay not know that 21.06
is still on the books and may be shocked to learn that it is. Here's
hoping that enough new eyes on the issue, and perhaps a stronger
backbone on the part of the chair, may finally lead to 21.06's repeal.<br /><br />
<br />DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-15539767196956453332016-11-14T08:56:00.000-06:002016-11-14T09:21:04.100-06:00First Pro-LGBT bill of the session filed: HB 192 - Housing Non-DiscriminationAnd we're off! The first pro-LGBT bill of the session was filed by Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio)' and it's HB 192. The bill would prohibit discrimination in housing on the basis of gender identity or expression and sexual orientation. HB 192 is identical to Rep. Bernal's HB 2860 filed last session and tracks the housing sections of Sen. Rodriguez's omnibus nondiscrimination bill from last session.<br />
<br />
HB 192 doesn't create any new legal mechanisms but adds gender identity and expression and sexual orientation to the existing protections against housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status and national origin. The definitions in the bill are the standard ones that have been used in LGBT non-discirmination bills in Texas for the last decade:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
"Gender identity or expression" means having or being perceived as having a gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior, regardless of whether that identity, appearance, expression, or behavior is different from that commonly associated with the person's actual or perceived sex.<br />
"Sexual orientation" means the actual or perceived status of a person with respect to the person's sexuality."</blockquote>
The bill also removes existing language in the protections against housing discrimination based on "disability" that explicitly states that the protections do not apply to sexual orientation to a person who is "a transvestite."<br />
<br />
Last session the bill was referred to the House State Affairs Committee where it languished along with the employment and public accommodations non-discrimination bills.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see how this bill is received given <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/lgbt-leaders-divided-bathroom-fight" target="_blank">the recent national conversation preferring legislation that covers all three areas</a> (employment, housing and public accommodation) and the growing tendency by some to perceive this kind of directed approach as "throwing people under the bus." It would be a real shame if Rep. Bernal, who was the driving force behind the passage of San Antonio's nondiscrimination ordinance, and who has a deep commitment to the transgender community, was painted with such a brush. I would encourage anyone who has any questions about this bill (or would just like to say thank you) to contact Rep. Bernal before jumping to conclusions. His e-mail is <a href="mailto:diego.bernal@house.state.tx.us">diego.bernal@house.state.tx.us</a><br />
<br />Daniel Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08005254570208749657noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-27983063962265024552016-11-14T07:29:00.001-06:002016-11-14T07:29:17.401-06:00It's the First Day of Early FilingToday is the first day of early filing in the Texas Legislature. Lawmakers in both the House and Senate may begin filing the bills that will be discussed when the legislature convenes in January 10, 2017. So how does that work and what does it mean?<br />
<br />
For the most part bills are numbered in the order they are filed. However House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 1 are reserved for the Appropriations Bill (the state's budget) and the first several bills in each chamber are reserved for the Speaker's priorities and the Lt. Governor's priorities, respectively. Last session it was the first 40 bills in the House, so the first bill filed on early filing day was HB 41, and the first 20 bills in the Senate, so the first bill filed was SB 21.<br />
<br />
There's no real particular legislative advantage to filing on the first day. Once the session gets going and bills sent to committees they are typically referred in batches of a couple hundred. The House and Senate will send the few hundred bills filed today to committee in the first couple of days of referral and the dozen or so bills filed tomorrow will follow them the same day or the next. Since the chairs of committees have almost complete discretion about when to schedule bills for hearings, a bill filed today could easily be heard in committee after a bill filed tomorrow or three months from now - or not at all.<br />
<br />
So why bother to traipse up to Austin to file a bill the first day?<br />
<br />
The bills filed today aren't an indication of what's most likely to pass next session, but they are an indication of what will be the major topics of conversation. Today's bills represent the top priorities for lawmakers - and, since every media outlet that covers the lege will run a "what got filed on the first day of early filing" article they are more so the top priorities of the lawmakers who really know how to capture the media's attention.<br />
<br />
We're likely to see several bills addressing school finance, for instance, but the school finance bills that really have grease under them won't be filed until after the committee reports from the committees that have spent the last 18 months studying the issue come in and their findings can be incorporated into bills - and those bills will likely get those extra-special, reserved early numbers.<br />
<br />
We're likely to see a couple of marriage bills, both pro- and anti- filed (last session (the first to see both statutory and constitutional marriage bills filed in both chambers) the pro-marriage bills were all filed on the first day).<br />
<br />
I also wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of potty police bills filed today. Lt. Gov. Patrick has made it a major policy position and some people will be rushing to curry favor by filing their versions (despite the fact that <a href="http://www.danielwilliamstx.com/2016/11/looking-for-silver-linings.html" target="_blank">everyone who filed one last session lost their re-election bid</a>). But again the ones filed today aren't likely to be the ones that eventually pass Patrick's Senate, as I suspect he's got one of those special "Lt. Governor's priorities" spots in the top 20 reserved and I bet he waits until a day the bill is all alone in the news cycle to have it filed.<br />
<br />
So pay attention to what gets filed today because it's a good indication of what we're going to be spending the 140 days of session talking about - but don't get too attached to any of the specific bills filed today, they aren't likely to be the ones we're worried about in May.Daniel Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08005254570208749657noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-87266121549208812342016-11-09T08:20:00.001-06:002016-11-09T08:20:36.937-06:00Looking for Silver LiningsWell, it looks like we have a President Trump, and a Republican House and Senate, and will soon have a Republican Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
Before you break out the hemlock or start booking your Canadian "vacation" here's some rays of light, particularly as we head into Texas' next legislative session:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>In Texas House District 144 Mary Ann Perez trounced incumbent Gilbert Peña 60% to 40%. Peña was one of two members of the legislature who filed anti-trans "bathroom bills" last session. The other, Debbie Riddle, lost her primary. That means that every member of the
lege who filed a bathroom bill last session lost their reelection. That's not going to keep a dozen bathroom bills from being filed next Monday (the first day of filing), but it does mean that no one "owns" the issue in the House and all of the various authors will have to coalesce around a single vision to proceed with a bill - which is an additional hurdle, and we need all the hurdles we can get.</li>
<li>In North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory lost even though Trump won. There was always a risk that if McCrory lost and Clinton won the loss could be written off as being on Clinton's coattails. The way this played out there's no doubt that the unpopularity of NC's HB 2 (which overturned local nondiscrimination ordinances and instituted the state's potty police) was the major contributing factor to his loss. While the die-hard Texas politicians obsessed with other people's bathroom habits (like Lt. Gov. Patrick) won't be swayed by that, it will give their more level-headed colleagues pause.</li>
<li>Texas Dems picked up 3 House seats (technically 4). In addition to Perez, Victoria Neave beat incumbent Ken Sheets in HD #107 and Philip Cortez beat incumbent Rick Galindo in 117 (technically the victory by Democrat Tomas Uresti in HD 118 is a pick up as well, but incumbent John Lujan won the seat in a bizarre special election and has never served while the legislature was in session, so the victory doesn't change the session calculus). Three seats isn't much, but a lot of victories in the lege, particularly when you're playing defense, happen because of one person. So this counts as a silver lining.</li>
<li>The 2020 election will elect the state legislatures that decide
redistricting. Those down ballot races will have the coattails of a
Democratic presidential candidate running either against a polarizing
incumbent or someone trying to escape his legacy. In 2008 Barack Obama's coattails almost flipped the Texas House and the 76 to 74 partisan divide they created was enough to unseat Speaker Craddick. Then the "Tea-Party wave" of 2010 swept out a third of those Democrats and the legislature that drew the lines for redistricting made sure they favored Republicans. There's a decade of progress at stake in the 2020 election and Clinton's defeat may have set up good conditions for a favorable outcome.</li>
</ul>
Daniel Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08005254570208749657noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-52212470399870015252016-10-23T13:10:00.000-05:002016-10-23T13:10:19.488-05:00Mea Culpa Re: HISD Prop 1In an <a href="http://www.danielwilliamstx.com/2016/10/understanding-hisd-prop-1.html" target="_blank">October 17th post</a> I argued that a "no" vote on HISD prop 1 was the best option for Texas children. I think it's important in political life to acknowledge when other people know more about something than you do and I think it's important to leave room open for those people to change your mind.<br />
<br />
Briefly, the question before the voters is whether or not HISD should send several million dollars to the state to avoid having the state detach non-residential properties from the district's tax base and assign them to other districts whose taxable properties are less valuable. The vote is being forced by a school finance system that is fundamentally broken and does not acknowledge that a district like HISD, with significant numbers of students living below the poverty line and students who are English as a second language learners, needs more money per student that a district without those challenges. <br />
<br />
Ninety percent of political questions don't have a right and wrong answer. There are somethings where compromise means contributing to the oppression of other people and compromise is not an option, but most of the time we're just deciding between different equally distasteful solutions.<br />
<br />
I've long quipped that "anyone who tells you they understand Texas' school finance system is either lying, delusional or Scott Hochberg." Hochberg is a former member of the State House who spent two decades earnestly trying to fix school finance with varying degrees of success. He knows more than I do and yesterday he made his opinion on HISD Prop 1 known in the <a href="http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/HISD-proposal-simply-matter-of-pocketbook-10128722.php?t=9313aaa6a2438d9cbb&cmpid=twitter-premium" target="_blank">Houston Chronicle</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...here's the thing: If HISD writes a check to the state, it loses only the amount of the check. But, if the district gives up taxable property, it loses the recapture amount, plus all the bond taxes the district would have collected off that property.<br />
<br />That means the tax rate we all pay for bond payments, now and in the future, has to go up to make up for the taxes lost from the lost property.<br />
<br />And, once the property is gone, it's gone forever. No take backs or fingers crossed.<br />
<br />State law actually favors districts that send cash. There's an "early decision" discount available for those districts. A no vote means we pay the full price.<br />
<br />Voting no is like giving away your garage to avoid paying property taxes on your house. That's why no district in the state has ever chosen the option of having property removed instead of sending a check. It's a bad deal.<br />
<br />The argument for voting no is that it will "send a message" to the legislature that it needs to fix the school funding system, and the legislature will obey. Maybe, but I served 20 years in the Texas Legislature working on these issues, and I don't buy it. It's not a bet I would make, much less risk HISD taxpayers' money on."</blockquote>
I would argue on the "no take backs" bit that the legislature created detachment and the legislature can fix it, meaning that while there's no way to get the property back under current law there could be under future law and with school finance sure to be a major issue in the next session that's a possibility, but this is Scott Hochberg - and Scott Hochberg knows this issue far, far better than I.<br />
<br />
I still don't believe there is a right and wrong on this vote. Anyone who looks at all the facts and votes "no" can do so with a clear conscience, but I've learned the wisdom of trusting people who are smarter than me. When Scott Hochberg says "yes" is the best course of action I have to believe he knows what he's saying. <br />
<br />DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-56898906175277570742016-10-17T08:21:00.003-05:002016-10-17T21:30:54.535-05:00Understanding HISD Prop 1UPDATED 10/17 9:25 pm: see below<br />
<br />
Several people have asked my opinion on the HISD ballot question (it's the very last thing on your ballot (Find your ballot <a href="http://www.harrisvotes.com/VoterBallotSearch.aspx?L=E" target="_blank">here</a>)<br />
<br />
There's no right answer on this. It's just a bad situation no matter how you look at it.<br />
<br />
Some background: In Texas we rely on local property taxes as the primary funding source for schools. Since some school districts have very valuable land they can tax, others do not. Without intervention that would mean that school districts with rich students would be better funded than school districts with poor students. In <a href="https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jre02" target="_blank">1989 the Texas Supreme Court</a> found that this system violated the Texas Constitution's requirement that the legislature "establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools"<br />
<br />
That's how we got the current school finance system, designed to ensure that all school districts receive sufficient funding for their students, regardless of the real estate values in the district. The system sets an expected per student level of funding, based on the number of days students attend classes. If a school district raises more from property taxes than they are allowed there are 5 options that the state or district can take to balance out the finances. Because of HISD's size 3 of those don't apply here. The two left are 1) for the district to "purchase attendance credits" from the state (so the district sends money to the state and the state gives them credit for days of attendance they don't have) this is what's on the ballot or 2) the state re-assigns non-residential properties to school districts that are below the line (so you and I won't ever see "FWISD" on our property tax bill, but the coffee factory on Harrisburg might) - if the prop doesn't pass the state will likely start this process.<br />
<br />
Some context: 40% of HISD students live in households below the poverty line and 1/3 are ESL students. Some kids cost more to educate than others and the current system does not recognize that. HISD and several other districts sued the state to try to fix the system and won at the trial level, but the Texas Supreme Court overturned the ruling and said the current system meets the minimum requirements of the constitution - then spent the rest of the opinion taking the lege to task for letting it get this bad. The lege will almost certainly change the formula this session.<br />
<br />
If the proposition passes the money paid to the state goes to the state. In theory the lege is supposed to then move those funds over to finance under-financed schools - but there's no guarantee that will happen and the lege has a long history of playing shell games with the money in the budget. If the prop does not match the reassigned property taxes go directly to other school districts, not through the state. The reassigned properties would be subject to the tax rates of the reassigned districts so those properties would likely wind up paying higher property taxes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This, to my mind, is the very best argument for "no." Even under the
worst case scenario a "no" vote means more money for schools - maybe not
Houston schools- but schools all the same.<br />
<br />
Also, with it very likely that the lege is going to rework the system HISD may have a different course of action under the new process. If they are locked buying attendance credits by a ballot initiative it may be difficult for them to legally get out of it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/Tablet/HoustonChronicle/SharedArticle.aspx?href=HHC%2F2016%2F10%2F17&id=Ar01502" target="_blank">Some have argued that a "no" vote is a dangerous game of chicken</a>. That the legislature just doesn't have any options to increase funding. Let's dispose of this fiction: they could close the excise tax
loophole, they could index the gas tax, they could stop letting WalMart
keep a portion of the sales tax, they could tap the rainy day fund
(that's why it's there), they could repeal the tax break for yachts they
recently created, the list goes on.<br />
<br />
Now, you might say that these
options are not politically viable - and you'd be right. The current
mess is what we keep voting for. The three biggest expenses in the state
budget are education, public health and transportation. This is what we
vote for when we elect people who say they're going to "cut taxes" -
cuts to education, public health and transportation. If we're going to
change that it has to start at the ballot box. So, vote "no" on the HISD
question, but only if you'll also stop voting for Austin-bound
candidates who say they'll cut taxes.<br />
<br />
There's no right answer - that money is going to go away and not be used to educate kids in Houston, and that sucks. To my mind voting "no" creates more options down the road, and ensures that even under a worse case scenario the money goes to education.<br />
<br />
UPDATE: To clear up confusion it should be made clear that the $168 million sent to the state is likely less than the cost to the district if properties are reassigned. The reason is kind of complicated. There are actually two taxes that go into the single line item for HISD you see on your property tax bill: the maintenance tax - which runs the district, and the debt service tax - which is used by HISD to pay back it's bonds. The value that the state will reassign (likely) if Prop 1 fails to pass will be based solely on the larger maintenance tax, but the district will lose both taxes. <a href="http://www.hisdparents.org/blog/2016/10/2/recapture-just-a-bit-more-complicated-than-vote-no" target="_blank">One estimate is that this will cost the district an additional $30 million</a> over the cost of purchasing attendance credits if the proposition passes.<br /> DanielWilliamsTXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02402441550732320398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-64866723071864458292016-06-05T13:09:00.001-05:002016-06-05T13:20:43.929-05:00Re: Violence Directed at Trump Supporters<br />
<br />
Video surfaced this week of anti-Trump protesters throwing eggs at a Trump supporter in California. The video quickly spurred conversations among the left of the ethics and efficacy of such protest.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oEMZSn8iLr4" width="560"></iframe><br /></div>
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">Perhaps the most common defense of violence directed at Trump and his supporters I have heard is the retort: "if you could go back and kill Hitler, wouldn't you?"</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">Now that's an interesting question full of all sorts of moral quandaries (and if you're interested in an in depth exploration of the moral implications of such an action I strongly encourage you to read some of the work of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer" target="_blank">Dietrich Bonhoeffer</a>, a Lutheran Minister who actually tried to kill Hitler), but if we concede the ethics of killing Hitler we must first decide if egging a Trump supporter is killing Hitler.</span></span><br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><br /></span></span>
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">One, Trump may or may not be Hitler. Certainly his framing of a religious minority as a danger to nationalistic dominance and his insistence that resident foreigners and international regulation are to blame for robbing the nation of it's presumed former glory would would suggest that his is, but whether he is or is not it seems clear that this lone supporter isn't. She's not even Goebbels or Himmler. At worst she's Isherwood's neighbor </span></span>Fraulein Mayr - slapping on a swastika because it gives her a pride the realities of a changing world does not.<br />
<br />
Two, egging won't stop Hitler (or Fraulein Mayr) - it will only convince them that the persecution they imagine they face for being a proud real German is real.<br />
<br />
"But," you might protest "perhaps seeing the opposition to the rise of Hitler/Trump in such a dramatic fashion might stop someone else from joining his ranks." Now that's an interesting idea, but it's where the Third Reich analogy falls apart.<br />
<br />
Germany in 1932 is not America in 2016 - and the biggest difference is in how our national campaigns work.<br />
<br />
In the 1932 German federal elections 84% of registered German voters turned up at the polls (to give you some context the turnout in America for the 1932 presidential election - at the height of the Great Depression mind you - <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html" target="_blank">was 52%</a>, and no American presidential election has ever had 84% turnout). That's not an anomaly. The 1930 German federal election had an 82% turnout; The 1928 election had a 76% turnout.<br />
<br />
Compare that to the massive "Obama Surge" voter turnout in 2008 at 57%, or the "Tea Party Wave" in 2010 at 38% turnout.<br />
<br />
Modern American elections start with the knowledge that there is a massive untapped reservoir of voters who don't vote and then compete to see who can best tap the share of that reservoir that agrees with them.<br />
<br />
American federal elections in 2016 are not about convincing people to agree with you. They are about convincing people who agree with you to actually turn-up and vote. This is part of the appeal of Trump to the far right. There is a belief that people who largely agreed with the more milquetoast Johns (Kerry and McCain) but who weren't excited enough to turnout and vote will be motivated by this candidate who speaks the language of fear and American nationalism.<br />
<br />
The danger of egging Trump/Hitler, or egging Fraulein Mayr, in 2016 isn't that someone who previously thought Trump/Hitler was an abomination will feel sympathy and now vote for him. It's that someone who previously thought of the Democrats as the lesser of two evils but worth voting for to defeat Trump/Hitler will stay home because they perceive the left as just as bad as the right. <span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"> Modern campaigns aren't about changing minds. They're
about convincing people it's worth their time to get involved. That's
what led the Obama surge in '08 and the Tea Party wave in '10. Not
people switching sides, but who stayed home and who showed up.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g">The moral argument on killing Hitler, or egging Trump supporters, isn't the point. It's not the ethics it's the efficacy. There is too much at stake in the Trump ascendancy to risk center-left voters staying home.</span></span>Daniel Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08005254570208749657noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-497484732376418396.post-40871618784017052672016-05-27T09:54:00.003-05:002018-05-14T09:59:58.395-05:00Interview with KOOP's Issues for your Tissues<br />
<br />
Check out this clip of my appearance on KOOP Radio 91.7 in Austin's Issues for your Tissues - a radio show about reproductive justice. I spoke with host Katie about North Carolina's HB 2 and the growing transphobia of our Texas Lt. Governor and Attorney General. The interview was recorded on May 24, the day before Texas sued the federal government to allow school districts to discriminate against transgender students.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<iframe src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By6QmnjROgA-UXlGUEZMaWNXYW8/preview" width="400" height="100"></iframe></div>Daniel Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08005254570208749657noreply@blogger.com0