WATCH: Legislators Speak at Dedication of Montrose Remembrance Garden

Texas Senators John Whitmire, Mario Gallegos and Rodney Ellis and Representative Garnet Coleman spoke last night at the dedication of the Montrose Remembrance Garden in Houston. The Garden is the brainchild of the Aaron Scheerhoorn Foundation for Change, made possible by the generous support of local business owner Charles Armstrong and the help of the Montrose Counseling Center.

All four spoke at length about the decade-long fight that led Texas to pass hate crimes legislation in 2001, and about the anti-bullying and teen suicide prevention bills passed this session by the legislature. Only Garnet Coleman mentioned Texas' hate crimes statute still excludes the transgender community (an omission he has tried to correct).

The Aaron Scheerhoorn Foundation was created in response to last December's brutal murder of Aaron Scheerhoorn, just blocks from the garden's location. Scheerhoorn was attacked in the Houston "gayborhood" of Montrose. Bleeding from stab wounds, he ran to a nearby bar to ask for assistance. According to witnesses the bar's bouncer refused to allow the dying man access. Scheerhoorn left to seek assistance elsewhere when his attacker caught up with him, finally delivering the fatal blow just feet from the bar's door.

In dedicating the garden organizers made it clear that it was not just in memory for Aaron Scheerhoorn, but in memory of "all victims of violence, victims of hate crimes, and those who were subjected to bullying." The event ended, as the sun set, with a candle-lit reading of the names of dozens of victims of violence and hate from the Houston area, followed by a release of hundreds of white balloons (watch the reading of victims names here).

The Session's Over, What Now?

The 82nd Texas Legislature's first called session has come to an end. So what will the members of the House and Senate being doing between now and the 2012 election? Both House and Senate committees are given "interim charges" to consider while the legislature is not in session. These charges are created by the Speaker of the House (for House committees) and the Lieutenant Governor (for Senate Committees). Typically the charges include gathering information on subjects that were heavily discussed during the legislative session (but about which no action was taken) and monitoring the implementation of legislation that did pass.

Each committee creates reports detailing their findings on those charges. Often this includes holding public hearings throughout the state. These public hearings, which are often sparsely attended, are an important opportunity for everyday people to interact directly with lawmakers. Even if the hearing is being held on an issue unrelated to the queer community's struggle for equality, simply showing up, speaking, and finding some way to out yourself during your testimony is a way to force lawmakers to realize that LGBT Texans exist, and are paying attention.

The queer community had a few victories this session, including the passage of anti-bullying bill HB 1942 and teen suicide prevention bill HB 1386. The question is now whether the policy changes created by that legislation will be implemented in a way that creates real benefits for LGBT youth. One way to to help ensure the success of those bills would be for the House Public Education, House Public Health and Senate Education Committees to be charged with monitoring their implementation. Historically, however, even non-LGBT specific issues, like bullying, have rarely been included in the interim charges. (For instance, Speaker Joe Straus' interim charges to the 81st House's Public Education Committee did not include any mention of bullying, despite that issue being hotly debated in committee during the 81st regular session.)

Needless to say LGBT-specific interim charges are even rarer. So despite the legislature's lack of action this session on important issues like allowing accurate birth certificates for the children of same-sex parents, repealing the unconstitutional "homosexual conduct" law and fixing the state's broken hate crime statute, it's unlikely that either Speaker Straus or Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst will see fit to include them, or the implementation of HB 1386 and HB 1942, in the Legislature's homework assignment.

The interim charges should be out within the next couple of months. We'll post them as soon as they are available and will keep you up to date on scheduled public hearings during the legislative interim.

Day 50: Here We Go Round the Committee Chambers, at Two O'clock in the Afternoon (or whenever)

Today is the 50th day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas legislature. The House reconvenes at 10 am, the Senate at 11.

Three House committees will hold hearings today on bills that could improve the lives of queer Texans:

• The Criminal Jurisprudence Committee will hear HB 172 by Veasey (D-Fort Worth), which would require the state to study the effectiveness of the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act, at 10:30 am or when the House finishes their business for the day. More info HERE.
• The Human Services Committee will hear HB 130 by Alvarado (D-Houston), which would create a statewide bullying hot-line, at 2:00 pm or when the House finishes their business for the day. More info HERE.
• The Public Education Committee will hear HB 24 by Guillen (D-Duval, Starr, Webb and Zapata counties) which would allow school administrators to address cyber-bullying and HB 224 by Strama (D-Travis county), which proposes a four-fold approach to fighting bullying (requiring training for teachers, staff, volunteers and students; allowing for the transfer of bullies from their victims classes/campuses; allowing school administrators to address cyber-bullying and requiring schools to compile reports on bullying), at 2:00 pm or when the House finishes their business for the day. More info HERE.

If you would like to watch any of these hearings you may do so on the House website HERE. Be forewarned, the House Administration Committee apparently thinks it's 1998 and so broadcasts committee hearings using RealPlayer, which is notoriously buggy. Expect your window to crash on a regular basis. (I suppose this is an improvement over the House Human Services Committee which seems to think it's 1898.)

The bills will be "laid out" in committee: Each bills author will get up, explain what the bill does, and say why they think it should become law. Members of the public will then have a chance to tell the committee why they think the bill should or should not become law. Finally the bill's author will get to make a closing statement on the bill and the bill will be left "pending" in committee until the committee chair decides to call for a vote. Committees rarely vote on bills the same day they are heard, usually waiting at least a week to take a vote.

The Dallas Voice reported yesterday that Rep. Strama will offer a committee substitute to HB 224 (read Legislative Queery's response HERE). House committees are charged with studying bills and making recommendations to the whole House about whether those bills should become law. The recommendation is called a "committee report". A committee substitute replaces the proposed bill with another bill on the same topic. It is included in the committee report which is then sent to one of the House's five "calendars committees" (different calendars committees handle different kinds of bills). The calendars committee then places the bill on the House schedule for consideration. If there is a committee substitute when the bill is brought up for discussion on the House floor the first order of business will be to approve the committee substitute as a replacement for the original bill. It is not until the whole House votes to "take up" the substitute that it officially replaces the bill.

Chuck Smith, Deputy Director of Equality Texas, posted a link to the proposed committee substitute in the comments section of the Dallas Voice article. He writes that:

"ALL members of our Texas Safe Schools Coalition support the committee substitute language, including Equality Texas, Transgender Education Network of Texas, and the GLBT Issues Committee of the National Association of Social Workers-Texas. "

The Texas Safe Schools Coalition is a group of lobbying and community organizations that have come together to advocate for legislation designed to address bullying.

Hate Crime Study Bill to Recieve Public Hearing

HB 172 by Rep. Marc Veasey is scheduled for public hearing on Tuesday, March 1st at 10:30 am (or whenever the House is finished with its business for the day, which will likely be a little later than 10:30). The bill would require the state to conduct a study on how the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act is being used.

The James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act allows for increased sentences for crimes committed because of the victim's real or perceived "race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, gender, or sexual preference". Over 1,800 potential hate crimes have been reported to the Department of Public Safety since the Texas hate crimes statute went into effect in 2001. Fewer than a dozen have been prosecuted as hate crimes according to Equality Texas.

HB 172 will be heard in the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee. Veasey filed this bill last session as well (HB 616) and the committee approved it with 8 members for, 1 against and two absent. Unfortunately only two of last session's members are back this session: Chairman Pete Gallego and Wayne Christian. While Gallego is supportive of this bill Christian opposed the creation of a Hate Crimes Statute in the first place so his opposition to anything that might make the Hate Crime statute more effective is virtually guaranteed.

The committee has 7 new members this session: Vice-Chair Hartnett, Aliseda, Burkett, Carter, Davis, Rodriguez and Zedler. Hartnett and Davis both supported the creation of the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Act. They both have excellent records of supporting the queer community and it's very likely that both of them will support HB 172. Rodriquez wasn't a member of the House when the Hate Crimes Statute was created, but he has an excellent voting record and will very likely support Veasey's idea. Zedler is an old-school conservative, the kind of person who thinks that non-discrimination policies must in some way work to his disadvantage. I would be shocked if he voted for this bill.

The other three new members, Aliseda, Burkett and Carter, are freshmen, swept in with the teabagger hysteria of the fall. Burkett is a teabagger's teabagger, she was one of only 15 house members to vote against Joe Straus for Speaker (the Teabaggers had encouraged house members to elect a "good Christian" speaker, as opposed to Straus, who is Jewish). The chance of Burkett (or Christian or Zedler, who also voted against Straus) supporting HB 172 is very slim. Aliseda and Carter's lack of experience (or stunning display of antisemitism) makes their vote hard to predict.

In a November 14th Fort Worth Star Telegram article Veasey was not optimistic about HB 172's chances:

"I'm going to try it, but quite frankly it's not going anywhere," Veasey said. "A lot of these folks that got elected were elected on opposition to the president and probably feel that being for anything pro-civil rights would hurt them in their political careers."

Looking at the make-up of this committee it seems more than likely his prophesy will come true.

------------------------------

If you would like to contact the members of the Criminal Jurisprudence committee and ask for their support the contact information is below.

Pete Gallego -Chair
(512) 463-0566
(512) 236-9408 Fax
pete.gallego@house.state.tx.us

Will Hartnett - Vice Chair
(512) 463-0576
(512) 463-7827 Fax
will.hartnett@house.state.tx.us

Jose Aliseda
(512) 463-0645
(512) 463-0559 FAX
Jose.Aliseda@house.state.tx.us

Cindy Burkett
(512) 463-0464
(512) 463-9295 Fax
Cindy.Burkett@house.state.tx.us

Stefani Carter
(512) 463-0454
(512) 463-1121 Fax
Stefani.Carter@house.state.tx.us

Wayne Christian
(877) 839-2709
(512) 463-5896 Fax
Wayne.Christian@house.state.tx.us

Yvonne Davis
(512) 463-0598
(512) 463-2297 Fax
Yvonne.Davis@house.state.tx.us

Eddie Rodriguez
(512) 463-0674
(512) 463-0314 Fax
Eddie.Rodriguez@house.state.tx.us

Bill Zedler
(512) 463-0374
(512) 463-0364 Fax
Bill.Zedler@house.state.tx.us

Attacker of Transgender Student Gets Seven Years.

Terrance Calhoun, who brutally robbed Houston Community College Student Lance Reyna last June, was sentenced to seven years in prison today by Harris County District Court Judge Belinda Hill.

Judge Hill had previously indicated that she was likely to give Calhoun deferred adjudication with a requirement to serve one year in a lock-up drug treatment facility and 10 years of community supervision. Hill gave no explanation for why she changed her mind.

At Calhoun's previous hearing several dozen family members were in attendance, no doubt to bolster his defense attorney's claim that Calhoun's large "Christian" family would keep him on the straight and narrow (despite their inability to do so after the drug conviction he was on parole for at the time of the attack). Only a handful attended today's hearing.

Crystal Johnson, who claims to be Calhoun's fiance, was also in attendance and left the courtroom in tears; in sharp contrast to her repeated threats posted on the website of Houston's Transgender Center and on social media websites. Reyna continues to receive anonymous threatening text messages, which have been reported to police.

The attack took place on June 22 at HCC's Central Campus. Calhoun followed Reyna into the restroom, shouted “Hey queer!”, and demanded Reyna’s possessions while thrusting a knife against Reyna’s throat. After robbing Reyna, Calhoun struck him in the face and shoved him to the floor.

The attack was reported to the Department of Public Safety as a Hate Crime but Harris County prosecutors declined to pursue Hate Crime sentence enhancements since doing so would not have increased the maximum sentence Calhoun could have received.

For more background on the case read Sentencing Delayed for Attacker of Trans Man

Bipartisan Votes Key to LGBT Legislative Successes - Part II

In which the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act becomes law, and we learn the power of committee chairpersonship

[Be sure to read Part I]

77th Legislature
HB 587 (James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act)
by Thompson
Passed on Second Reading
Yea (77 Democrats, 10 Republicans)
Nay (60 Republicans)
Present, Not Voting (1 Democrat)
Absent (1 Republican)
Absent, Excused (1 Republican)

The James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act created a mechanism to allow prosecutors to seek tougher sentences for defendants convicted of committing crimes where the victim was targeted based on their real or perceived race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, gender, or "sexual preference".

The Democrats held the majority in the House during the 77th session, with 78 of the 150 House Seats. Versions of the Hate Crimes Bill had been introduced every regular session since the brutal murder of Paul Broussard (targeted for being gay) in Houston in 1991 but had failed to pass. During the 76th regular session Rep. Senfronia Thompson, frustrated with the stalled efforts and galvanized by the recent vicious murder of James Byrd Jr. (targeted for being black), took the lead in passing the bill. Thompson used her position as chair of the Judicial Affairs Committee to stall the legislation of Representatives who opposed the bill.

The Texas State Constitution requires all bills to be "read" three times on the House floor. After the first "reading" the bill is referred to one of the House committees which then must vote for the bill to proceed. Once the bill is out of committee it is then sent to one of the Calendar Committees which schedules it for a second reading. It's during second readings that the real debate takes place. Although there is one more vote after the third reading it is rarely a record vote.

When HB 587 passed the House on second reading every Democrat voted for it (other than the Speaker, who traditionally only votes in cases of ties) - as did 10 Republicans. Although the Hate Crimes Act would have passed with only Democratic votes, the bipartisan support garnered was crucial later when the bill went to the Senate, which was controlled by the Republicans.

The key to passing the Hate Crimes bill was Rep. Thompson and her chairwomanship. As Chair of the House Judiciary Committee she was in a position to, at her discretion, choose which bills referred to that committee received hearings and were voted on by the committee (it is possible for a majority of the members of the committee to bypass the chair but it is almost unheard of). She used that power to negotiate with key members who were holding up the vote on the Hate Crime bill.

Committee chairs are selected by the Speaker of the House, who is selected by the members of the House (and is historically a member of the ruling party). This is one way that the majority party can exercise their power, and one of the reasons it matters which party is in the majority. Unlike the U.S. Congress, where committee chairs are almost always all members of the ruling party, Texas House Speakers have historically appointed committee chairs from both parties, roughly in proportion with each party's House Membership (there is pressure from the Texas far right for the Speaker to abandon that practice, which is short-sighted).

Thompson was also able to leverage her personal friendship to get the House's most vitriolic homophobe, Warren Chisum, to support the bill by changing "Sexual Orientation" to the more prejudicial "Sexual Preference". Without Chisum's opposition it was difficult for more conservative Democrats to justify their opposition.

The personal relationships that House members develop with each other are probably more influential to getting legislation passed than any other single factor. Thompson is currently the second longest serving member of the House, and even in 1999 she held significant seniority. That lifetime of building relationships was crucial in the passage of the Hate Crimes Act.

What makes Rep. Thompson's advocacy for this bill so amazing was her unwillingness to drop sexuality from the list of characteristics against which motivating bias could trigger the Hate Crimes enhancement. The bill would have likely have flown through the legislative process without this inclusion. Rep. Thompson's willingness to take the more difficult path is laudable even as we, a decade later, lament the exclusion of Gender Identity and Expression from the statute and the use of "Sexual Preference".

Up next in Part II: the Texas Defense of Marriage Act, how to tell who your real friends are and bipartisanship is also the key to LGBT legislative failures

Sentencing Delayed for Attacker of Trans Man

Terrance Calhoun, who brutally attacked and robbed a gay transgender student at Houston Community College this summer faced Harris County District Court Judge Belinda Hill at his sentencing hearing today.

The attack took place on June 22 near downtown Houston. Calhoun followed Lance Reyna into the restroom, shouted “Hey queer!”, and demanded Reyna’s possessions while thrusting a knife against Reyna’s throat. After robbing Reyna, Calhoun struck him in the face and shoved him to the floor.

I accompanied Reyna to the Houston Police Station a couple of weeks after the attack, where he identified Calhoun in a line-up. This was the first time he had seen his attacker since the robbery. Lance was pale and could barely speak above a whisper as he bravely identified the man who had left him bruised and bleeding on a restroom floor.

Calhoun's face in the lineup was brazen, his body held in tension between defiance and threat. A far cry from his demeanor in court today where he shuffled his feet, cried and spoke so softly that the judge repeatedly asked him to speak up.

Reyna testified in court today that he fears another attack and believes that Calhoun should serve at least a portion of the 5 years to life in prison that Texas law allows.

Calhoun plead guilty to aggravated robbery, but denied shouting the anti-gay epithet during the attack. His defense attorney attempted to convince the judge that the Christian values of his large, supportive family would prevent him from re-offending if the judge gave him probation instead of jail time. District Attorney Jonathan Stephenson succinctly retorted that if Calhoun's Christian values and supportive family didn't help him set his life straight after his previous drug conviction (a conviction for which he was serving probation at the time of the attack on Reyna) the court had no reason to believe they would do so now.

Judge Hill ordered Calhoun, who has been out on bail, to return to county custody for 120 days while she considers his sentence. “I’m pleased to know that my attacker is now behind bars, where he cannot harm anyone else,” said Reyna. “I thank the judge for her sensitive consideration of this issue, and look forward to her final ruling.”

The attack against Reyna was reported to the department of public safety as a hate crime, so it will be included in the Hate Crimes Statistic Report by the FBI, but the Harris County DA has declined to prosecute it as a hate crime under Texas law.

Understand that the Harris County DA is not claiming that it was not a hate crime, they are simply choosing not to request that the judge in the case add a finding that Calhoun acted out of an anti-gay bias to the charges against him.

Why not? Because the Texas hate crime law (found in Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 42.014) only allows prosecutors to add to the maximum allowed for the crime in question. Because the guidelines for aggravated robbery allow for a sentence of 5 years to life in prison attaching the hate crime charge would not increase the potential punishment the judge could prescribe (a person can not serve more time than life). There is no incentive for the prosecutor to pursue a hate crime charge when doing so would create more work, and would not affect the final sentence of the defendant.

“The Texas Hate Crimes statute is disappointingly insufficient as a tool against attacks like this”, said Cristan Williams, executive director of the Transgender Foundation of America, "I am hopeful that state lawmakers will consider revising the law to make it more useful”.

According to Randal Terrel, former Policy Director for Equality Texas, over 1,800 potential hate crimes have been reported to the Department of Public Safety since the Texas hate crimes statute went into effect in 2001. Only 12 have been prosecuted as hate crimes.

Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Tarrant County) filed legislation last month (HB 172) that would require a study to look for ways to improve the law. (Legislative Queery's synopsis of the bill HERE) He filed a similar bill last session, which was heard in committee and sent to the full House for a vote, but it was not voted on before the end of session.

One solution to the problem with the hate crime law would be to edit the statute to allow an increase in the minimum allowable sentence in cases where the maximum is life. Under the current statute Judge Hill could sentence Calhoun to as little as 5 years in prison. He would then be eligible for parole in about two and a half years. If the law were amended so that including the hate crimes charge increased the minimum sentence, say to 10 years, prosecutors would have a reason to use it since it would likely result in longer sentences.

Another idea for improving the law would be amend it to include gender identity and expression. Currently the hate crimes statute list several attributes, and allows for a perpetrators bias against people with those attributes to trigger the hate crimes enhancement. Under the current law crimes committed because of the perpetrator's bias against transgender people cannot be prosecuted as hate crimes. ( This omission was not an issue in this case because Reyna is both gay and transgender, and because the epithet used "queer" demonstrates Calhoun's bias against gay people.) Last legislative session Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) filed a bill (HB 2966) that would have done that. It did not receive a hearing.

Judge Hill indicated that her final ruling will likely be "deferred adjudication", a legal process by which she can wait to sentence him until he completes requirements of the court. Hill suggested that she might order Calhoun to attend one year of substance abuse treatment at a “lock-down” facility followed by 10 years of probation. If Calhoun did not follow the rules of the treatment facility or violated his probation he would then find himself back in front of Judge Hill, who could sentence him to up to in life in prison.

Veasey Refiles Hate Crime Study Bill

HB 172 by Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Tarrant County) would require the state to conduct a study on how the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act is being used.

The James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act allows for increased sentences for crimes committed because of the victims real or perceived "race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, gender, or sexual preference".

Over 1,800 potential hate crimes have been reported to the Department of Public Safety since the Texas hate crimes statute went into effect in 2001. Only 12 have been prosecuted as hate crimes according to Equality Texas.

There are different ideas about why the Hate Crimes law is not being used. One excuse often given by District Attorneys for not attaching the Hate Crimes enhancement is that crimes like assault already carry a maximum penalty of life in prison. Attaching the Hate Crimes charge would not increase the maximum possible sentence and would create more work for the DA, since they would have to prove the motivation for the crime.

Another theory about why the Hate Crimes enhancement is not being used is that prosecutors are not properly educated about how it works and are reticent to prosecute what they do not understand.

The hope is that a study of the effectiveness of the law would help lawmakers better understand its faults and that legislation could then be passed that would amend the law to make it more usable.

Veasey filed this same bill last session (HB 616). That bill made it through subcommittee and committee hearings but ran out of time and never received a vote of the full house. HB 172 was filed on Monday, the first day to file bills. I'm very happy to see Veasey file this so early, it shows that he is serious about it. The lower bill number will mean that the bill is referred to committee earlier in the session and will have more time to work through the legislative process.

The next step for Veasey is going to be convincing a State Senator to file a companion bill. Bills must be passed by both the House and Senate before going to the governor to sign. Bills originating in the house bills are "read" on the house floor and then referred to a committee. The committee then holds public hearings on the bill. If the committee likes the bill and votes "yea" on it it's then referred to the "Calendars" committee which places it on the schedule for the whole house to consider. When its scheduled spot on the calendar comes up the bill is then "read" a second time and the whole house has an opportunity to debate it and then vote on whether it should become law. The bill is then "read" a third time (usually the day after the 2nd reading) and must be voted on again.

After passing on third reading the bill then goes to the Senate and starts the process again (1st reading, referred to committee, public hearing, voted out of committee, calendars, second reading, third reading). Then, if the Senate amended the bill so that it is different from the House version 5 members of the House and 5 members of the Senate get appointed to meet in a "conference committee" which hashes out a compromise between the two versions. The conference committee's version of the bill must then go back to both the House and the Senate and be approved by majority vote. Only then can the bill go to the Governor to be signed into law.

(The process for Senate bills works in the same way, only starting with the Senate and going to the House.)

But wait! There is a short cut! If a Senator introduces the same bill in the Senate as a House member introduces in the House then they can both work their way through the system at the same time. Then, if the House bill passes on third reading before the Senate bill does the House bill can simply take the place of the Senate bill at whatever stage of the process it's in.

(So if, when the House bill passes on third reading, the Senate version has already been put on the schedule by calendars the House version can skip first reading and committee hearings in the Senate and just take the place of the Senate version on the schedule).

Most bills that eventually become law are introduced in both a House and Senate version. If Veasey is serious about the study taking place he needs to start talking to State Senators about carrying a Senate version.

-----------------
To read a detailed, day by day account of one bills journey through the legislative process read Anti-Bullying Legislation in Texas