Pages

Showing posts with label Marc Veasey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marc Veasey. Show all posts

Saturday, July 30, 2011

'Raging Elephants' Target Texas House Members for Pro-LGBT Votes

'Raging Elephants,' a Republican activist group targeting the African-American community, has begun a series of robo-calls attacking African-American and Hispanic house members for their pro-LGBT votes. In the last two weeks the group has targeted 20,000 minority households in the districts of Senfronia Thompson, Dawnna Dukes, Joaquin Castro and Marc Veasey, all Democrats.

Raging Elephants took issue with the member's efforts to defeat 82(1) Amendment 148 to SB 1, Wayne Christian's (R-Center) attempt to ban LGBT resource centers from Texas' college campuses (read LQ's post on the defeat of Amendment 148). The four targeted house members were some of the most vocal in standing up for the queer community, delivering impassioned speeches on the House floor:
"Everybody’s not straight, people who are gay are born gay and they deserve the same rights, liberties and protections that everyone does."
-Marc Veasey (D-Fort Worth)

"You may say ‘if they’re gay, and somebody hurts them, then so what?’ But let me just remind you that those persons are somebody’s child..."
-Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston)

"I have the same feelings elicited in me about the hate and bigotry put forth by measures like this as [measures that] were [introduced] back in the pre-civil rights period when certain buzz words and statements to create fear about certain individuals [who were] different [were] brought before legislative bodies and certainly before the Texas House of representatives on multiple occasions just to create a vote based on hate, because someone was different."
-Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin)
Raging Elephants, which is lead by "Apostle Claver T. Kamau-Imani", is claiming that that the members' defense of basic human rights and dignity equates to funding “homosexual education and activities in the state budget” and of waging an “attack on biblical morals”.

Bizarrely, by attacking house members who opposed amendment 148 Raging Elephants is, by default, supporting the amendment's author: Wayne Christian. After a procedural maneuver forced Christian to retreat from his attempts to defund campus resource centers he defended his position, and rebuffed accusations that his amendment was discriminatory by saying:
“I'm one fellow that was racially discriminated against. Back in the '70s I was on the first team in basketball at high school, my sophomore and junior years, and we integrated my senior year, and I rode the bench because I couldn't play as good as they did. White boys can't jump. So I received discrimination.”
-Wayne Christian (R-Center)
That's right, in Wayne Christian's mind racial discrimination is what happens when people of color are permitted to compete on an even playing field against white people, and less skilled white people are replaced by more skilled people of color. It's hard to read Christian's quote and not think he is secretly pining for the days of segregation, when nonathletic white boys didn't suffer the 'discrimination' of fair competition.

For anyone to defend this kind of racism is deplorable, but for an African-American organization, even a Republican one, to suggest that Wayne Christian should be the arbitrator of what is and isn't discrimination is unfathomable, reckless and borderline suicidal.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Amendment to Ban Campus LGBT Resource Centers Defeated - Again

Late last night, as the 16 hour debate on SB 1, the "fiscal matters" bill, was drawing to a close on the House floor Wayne Christian (R-Center) offered his latest permeation of an amendment to ban LGBT resource centers from Texas Universities. In its original incarnation the amendment would have required schools that have LGBT resource centers to equally fund "family and traditional values" centers. The new version completely banned LGBT resource centers from Texas' public universities.

My post on the Dallas Voice Instant Tea Blog goes into further detail on the over half-hour debate of the amendment, and it's eventual death, but I wanted to take a second here to make an editorial observation: The first time Christian tried to destroy this valuable resource no member of the House spoke against him and only one (Joaquin Castro (D-San Antonio)) questioned the need for the amendment, this time there was concerted and passionate opposition. The first time Christian tried to silence the voice of queer college students it sailed through with only 22 House members voting against, this time Trey Martinez-Fischer (D-San Antonio) threatened to sink the entire fiscal matters bill, probably the most important bill of the special session, unless Christian removed the amendment. The first time Christian sought to create an environment of closeted fear on college campuses all anyone could do was make jokes about what "pansexual" meant, this time members made statements like:
"Everybody’s not straight, people who are gay are born gay and they deserve the same rights, liberties and protections that everyone does."
-Marc Veasey (D-Fort Worth)

"You may say ‘if they’re gay, and somebody hurts them, then so what?’ But let me just remind you that those persons are somebody’s child..."
-Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston)

"I have the same feelings elicited in me about the hate and bigotry put forth by measures like this as [measures that] were [introduced] back in the pre-civil rights period when certain buzz words and statements to create fear about certain individuals [who were] different [were] brought before legislative bodies and certainly before the Texas House of representatives on multiple occasions just to create a vote based on hate, because someone was different."
-Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin)

Do [LGBT students] have the right to participate in extra-curricular activities? Do they have the right to participate in the debate team? Do they have the right to play on our football teams, on our basketball teams, on our volleyball teams?
Or should we say, because they may be gay or something else, that they do not have the right to play right along with other girls and other boys, because we are sending the wrong message and they should remain in the bleachers?”
-Sylvester Turner (D-Houston)
What changed between April 17th, when Christian's amendment passed with almost no objection, and June 9th, when allies of the LGBT community were willing to bring the entire special session to a screaming halt to stop him?

You did.

The LGBT community changed. The LGBT community spoke, with a strong and unambiguous voice and told the people who were sent to Austin to represent us that we would not sit idly by while hate and bigotry were written into our laws. We told them we expected a fight, and they fought for us.

Take Raphael Anchia (D-Dallas), historically Anchia's been one of the stronger allies the queer community has in the House, but when Christian first offered his amendment Anchia voted "present, not voting." His aide explained to the Dallas Voice that the vote was intended to be a protest of what Anchia considered a ridiculous piece of legislation.

The LGBT community didn't see a it as a protest, we saw it as someone watching us being attacked and not doing anything about it, and we let Anchia know it. This time, when Christian offered his amendment, Anchia was one of the first at bat and asked Christian what might have been the most pertinent question of the evening: "What is your gender identity?" To which Christian replied "I'm a heterosexual father of three." Showing a better understanding of gender than most straight, cisgender men Anchia retorted "No, that's your [sexual orientation], what's your gender identity?" Anchia pushed Christian to understand that, just like everyone else, he has a gender identity, that's it's not some foreign attribute that only wierdos posses, but a universal attribute that everyone shares.

It is easy sometimes to despair, to think that efforts to influence our elected officials will never create dramatic change, and the truth is they won't. The change they create is subtle. Talking to our elected officials isn't going to turn a rabid homophobe like Christian into an ally, but it can push a quite ally like Anchia to become a vocal advocate. That's the key.

We must must constantly communicate with those charged with making these important decisions so that one day instead of Wayne Christian hating queer people and introducing amendments to make his hate statutory, he just hates queer people while quietly muttering to himself in the corner; so that a conservative representative who cringed at the Christian amendment but voted for it anyway will have the courage to vote "nay" next time; and so that a representative who this time voted against the amendment, but didn't take the opportunity to publicly and loudly decry homophobia on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives will find the courage next time to stand up and say "This amendment hurts me, because it hurts my fellow Texans."

While we work towards that day, please take the opportunity to call those members who fought for us on the House floor and tell them "thank you":

Raphael Anchia (512) 463-0746
Joaquin Castro (512) 463-0669
Dawnna Dukes (512) 463-0506
Trey Martinez-Fischer (512) 463-0616
Borris Miles (512) 463-0518
Senfronia Thompson (512) 463-0720
Sylvester Turner (512) 463-0554
Marc Veasey (512) 463-0716

----------------------------
There were two record votes taken on amendments offered to the Christian Amendments. As soon as those are available on the Texas Legislature Online LQ's House score card will be updated.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

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.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

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

Friday, December 17, 2010

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.

Friday, November 12, 2010

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