Top 10 Texas House Members on LGBT Issues

The 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature has come to an end. It was perhaps the best legislative session for queer Texans ever with not one, but two anti-bullying bills passing and the HIV Medication Advisory Committee's future protected by statute. Multiple bills and amendments targeting the community were introduced but were all defeated. Although we didn't get everything we needed, and are still waiting for the Governor's signature on the three bills mentioned above, all in all it was a very good session for LGBT issues.

We here at Legislative Queery have crunched the numbers and ranked the 150 members of the Texas House based on their votes and authored legislation from the 82nd regular session, the rankings do not take into consideration past votes or legislation or public statements by the elected officials, you can read how we arrived at the rankings HERE.

#1

Garnet Coleman (D-Houston)

Score: 126 points Grace: A+ Coleman's district includes about half of Houston's historic "gayborhood" of Montrose, so it's no surprise that he voted in the best interests of the queer community for all nine of the record votes considered in these rankings. What put him over the top was authoring seven pro-LGBT bills or amendments this session including HB 1386, his teen suicide prevention bill and HB 2229 which makes permanent the Texas HIV Medication Advisory Committee, both of which passed out of the Legislature and await the Governor's signature. Coleman also authored legislation that would equalize the current hetro-only defense to prosecution for indecency with a child if the contact is consensual and the partner is within 3 years of age and a bill that would would add gender expression and identity to current list of attributes bias against which can trigger hate crimes prosecution. Additionally he joint authored a bill that would have required School Health Advisory Councils to issue reports on bullying.

#2

Elliott Naishtat (D-Austin)

Score: 101 points Grade: A+ New York native Naishtat's district includes the University of Texas at Austin, which may explain the bill he's introduced for the last several sessions to allow Texas Universities to remain competitive by offering health benefits to the unmarried partners of professors and their children. Naishtat was the author or co-author of five additional pieces of legislation that would benefit the LGBT community including HB 1942, the "super" anti-bullying bill; both the House and Senate versions of legislation that would require School Health Advisory Councils to issue reports on bullying and HB 2229,which makes permanent the Texas HIV Medication Advisory Committee.

#3

Carol Alvarado (D-Houston)

Score: 100 points Grade: A+ Alvarado was the principle author of HB 130, the elegant approach to fighting bullying that would have created a statewide anti-bullying hotline (the bill unfortunately died in the House Human Services Committee). She also has the distinction of joint and co-authoring more LGBT friendly bills than any other member of the House including 4 designed to combat bullying and its effects (HB 24, HB 224, HB 1386 and HB 1942).

#4 (tie)	Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin)
	Score: 97 points Grade: A Dukes carried both the House and Senate versions of a bill that, in its original form, would have required Local Community Health Advisory Councils to create recommendations on the anti-bullying portions of health class curricula. Unfortunately that portion of the bill was removed before the House voted on it (the bill, SB 736, now awaits the Governor's signature).

#4 (tie)

Jessica Farrar (D-Houston)

Score: 97 points Grade: A Farrar is chair of the House Democratic Caucus, but her duties don't stop her from being a passionate advocate of the LGBT community. Farrar is the author of legislation that would have finally removed Texas' unconstitutional law against "homosexual conduct." She also joint authored Coleman's teen suicide prevention bill, playing a pivotal role in its passage. During the Equality Texas Lobby Day back in March, Farrar personally welcomed citizen lobbyists to her office offering them snacks and telling them they were "wasting their time" at her office, since she was already such a committed supporter.

#6

Mark Strama (D-Austin)

Score: 96 points Grade: A This session marked Strama's third attempt to pass anti-bullying legislation. Although he was unsuccessful in passing his HB 224, major elements of the bill were included in HB 1942, of which he was a co-author. Although the legislation does not include any specific reference to sexual orientation or gender identity and expression Stama's advocacy on behalf of the victims of bullying is laudable.

#7	Armando Walle (D-Houston)
	Score: 95 points Grade: A Walle was coauthor of Coleman's teen suicide prevention bill, SB 1386. He also joint authored an excellent piece of legislation by Raphael Anchia (D-Dallas) that, if it had passed, would have allowed adoptive parents in same-sex relationships to receive accurate birth certificates for their children by allowing both parents names to be on the certificate.

#8 (tie)

Eric Johnson (D-Dallas)

Score: 93 Grade: A Tied for highest ranking freshman on the list (and the highest ranking Dallas-area rep), Johnson has proved himself an able ally. His district includes a small sliver of the historic "gayborhood" of Oaklawn which might explain why Johnson co-authored both Strama's anti-bullying bill (that included sexual orientation) and the eventual compromise "super" anti-bullying bill HB 1942.

#8 (tie)	Ron Reynolds (D-Missouri City)
	Score: 93 points Grade: A The only member of the top 10 not based in a major metropolis, Reynolds, who's tied for highest ranking freshman on the list, proved himself to be a keen ally in the fight to end bullying. He co-authored both Strama's anti-bullying bill (that included sexual orientation) and the eventual compromise "super" anti-bullying bill HB 1942.

#10 (tie)

Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth)

Score: 91 points Grade: A Burnam is a sleeper ally, known for being willing to fight for what's right (even when it's politically unpopular), Burnam knows that his reputation as the most liberal member of the Texas House means that sometimes his early support for legislation can scare off more moderate members. This is why he waited until late in the process to add his name as a co-author to anti-bullying "super" bill HB 1942. (full disclosure: the author is a former aide to Burnam)

#10 (tie)	Joe Farias (D-San Antonio)
	Score: 91 points Grade: A Farias has served in the House since 2007 and is on the powerful Local and Consent Calendars Committee. Although not the most vocal member of the House his co-authorship of anti-bullying "super" bill HB 1942 and his quiet habit of consistently voting in the best interest of the LGBT community make him a valuable ally.

#10 (tie)	Borris Miles (D-Houston)
	Score: 91 points Grade: A Miles is plain spoken and known for fighting hard for what he believes, attributes that have served him well in the 82nd legislature. he was a co-author on HB 1942 the anti-bullying "super" bill and can be counted on to consistently vote in the best interest of the queer community.

#10 (tie)

Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston)

Score: 91 points Grade: A The only member of the top ten to not score perfectly on the nine votes included in the rankings, Thompson made up for it by authoring HB 905 which would have allowed people legally recognized as un-married to enter into gestational agreements with surrogate mothers (currently only married people may) and by carrying SB 205 in the House, which would have expanded and clarified the anti-bullying requirements of school's student codes of conduct. Thompson's one errant vote was on anti-bullying "super" bill HB 1942 and likely had more to do with amendments added by Rep. David Simpson than with any objection to the bill.

That's the top ten, well thirteen. We'll publish the rest of the list soon, but in the meantime take a look at how LQ arrived at the scores and tell us what you think. Any ranking system like this naturally involves the biases of the people compiling the list. LQ welcomes comments, suggestions, rants and criticisms regarding the rankings.

UPDATE: The list of the Worst 10 Texas House Members on LGBT Issues is up.

House Public Education Committee Passes Bullying Legislation

The House Public Education Committee has "reported favorably" on the committee substitute to HB 1942 by Rep. Diane Patrick (R-Arlington). Technically committees do not pass legislation, but instead issue reports to the whole body on whether the legislation is a good idea, by reporting favorably the committee is recommending that the House pass HB 1942. A "committee substitute" is a way to amend a bill in committee by completely replacing it with another bill on the same topic. In the case of HB 1942 the committee substitute is the result of negotiations by the sub-committee on bullying and incorporates elements of several other bills that have been filed this session.

When compared to HB 242 (The Strama/Davis big bully bill) the committee substitute for HB 1942 (or CSHB 1942) is far less comprehensive. Strama's bill, as originally filed, did four major things:

• Require that all staff, teachers, parents and students receive training on how to identify and prevent bullying;
• Allow for the transfer of bullies to different classes/campuses than their victims (currently only the victim may be transferred);
• allow school administrators to address cyberbullying that takes place off campus if the electronic communication is received on campus or at a school event or if it substantially disrupts school operations; and
  
• Require school districts to annually report instances of bullying to the state, enumerating the report by motivating bias including sexual orientation, but not gender identity and expression.

CSHB 1942, in contrast, would:

• Require that school health curriculums include information on how to "effectively address awareness, prevention, identification, and resolution of and intervention in bullying," but would not require training for staff, teachers or parents (the bill says that districts "may" provide training for teachers, but does not require it);
• Allow for the transfer of bullies to different classes/campuses than their victims (currently only the victim may be transferred);
• Allow school administrators to address cyberbullying, but only if it "occurs on school property, at a school-sponsored or school-related activity, or on a vehicle operated by the district;"
• Not require any state-level reporting on instances of bullying; and
  
• Further clarify the requirements of anti-bullying policies schools must adopt in their Student Codes of Conduct.
  

In addition, CSHB 1942 creates a standard definition for "bullying" for the education code. Currently the education code's definition of bullying is

"'bullying' means engaging in written or verbal expression or physical conduct that a school district board of trustees or the board's designee determines: (1) will have the effect of physically harming a student, damaging a student's property, or placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to the student's person or of damage to the student's property; or (2) is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive enough that the action or threat creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for a student." (emphasis added)

-Education Code Sec 25.0342

However, that definition only applies to section 25, which gives school districts the ability to transfer the victims of bullying to other classes or campuses. There are other sections of the education code which talk about bullying, but they do not have their own definitions.

CSHB 1942 fixes this by redefining bullying for the entire code (including Sec 25.0342) as

"bullying" means engaging in written or verbal expression, expression through electronic means, or physical conduct that occurs on school property, at a school-sponsored or school-related activity, or on a vehicle operated by the district and that: (1) has the effect or will have the effect of physically harming a student, damaging a student ’s property, or placing a student in reasonable fear of harm to the student ’s person or of damage to the student ’s property; (2) is sufficiently severe, persistent, and pervasive enough that the action or threat creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for a student; (3) exploits an imbalance of power between the student perpetrator and the student victim through written or verbal expression or physical conduct; and (4) interferes with a student ’s education or substantially disrupts the operation of a school. (emphasis added)

The use of the word "and" in the proposed new definition (instead of the word "or") means that, to be considered bullying, the behavior will have to meet every criteria in the definition. Under this definition if a bully threatens to harm a student in a severe and pervasive way that exploits an imbalance of power and interferes with a student's eduction, but isn't persistent about it, it wouldn't count as bullying. If a bully physically harms a student in a severe, persistent and pervasive way that substantially disrupts the operation of the school, but administrators do not perceive an imbalance of power, it wouldn't count as bullying. The use of the word "and" where previously "or" was used weakens the existent protections in the code.

The next step in the process will be for the "Calendars Committee" to place CSHB 1942 on the House's schedule. The House divides bills into seven calendars, depending on what the bill does. Different calendars are heard on different days and the Calendars Committees determine which bills go on which calendars. The Public Education Committee recommended CSHB 1942 be placed on the General State Calendar, which is reserved for non-emergent bills that have a statewide impact but only effect some citizens (in this case students). CSHB must be debated on the House floor before midnight on May 12 in order to move on to the next step in the process: Senate consideration. Last session similar legislation (HB 1324 by Strama (D-Travis Co)) failed to pass because it didn't make this deadline (for more information read LQ's Anti-Bullying Legislation in Texas Part II).

Once CSHB 1942 reaches the floor there will be an opportunity to amend it. With such a carefully crafted compromise, however, it's likely that Democratic members who find fault with the bill will be encouraged to not attempt to make it better. The best hope for improving this legislation (for instance fixing that whole and/or issue) is for members to speak privately with Rep. Patrick and the bill's co-authors (Shelton, Strama, Eissler and Guillen) about any desired changes before CSHB 1942 reaches the floor. If Patrick is agreeable a "friendly amendment" can be offered to fix any issues without subjecting the bill to prolonged debate which might endanger it.

CSHB 1942 incorporates ideas from a number of bills filed this session, including HB 24, HB 195, HB 224/SB 242, SB 42 and SB 205 and is the result of compromises designed to appease a majority Republican committee and a majority Republican Legislature (10 of the 11 committee members voted in favor of the bill, including 5 Republicans and the bill's principal author, Diane Patrick is a Republican). By removing any recognition of sexual orientation (let alone gender identity and expression) as a motivating bias for bullying, and by removing any suggestion that administrators have a responsibility to respond to off-campus bullying the crafters of this compromise have made it more appealing to the majority of legislators. Although it will likely face some opposition on the floor it is likely to pass, provided that there is still enough time left in the session.

Budget Amendments Attempt to Elevate Straight, White College Students

Last Friday, April 1, the Texas House began its deliberation of the state's budget. Two amendments offered by Rep. Wayne Christian (Shelby, Nacogdoches, San Augustine, Sabine and Jasper Counties) 14 hours into the 16 hour debate attempted to ensure the continued elevation of straight people and white people in Texas' public universities. One amendment was successful, the other was not.

Christian's first proposed amendment to the budget (amendment #143 of the debate) required public universities in Texas who have a "gender and sexuality center or other center for students focused on gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, transexual, transgender, gender questioning, or other gender identity issues" to spend an equal amount of money to fund a center for "family and traditional values." Every university in the state is facing a budget crisis. Christian's amendment would effectively double the cost of having gender and sexuality centers, which will cause schools which do not have them to be less likely to create them, and force schools which do have them to slash their center's budgets to make up the difference.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-San Antonio) questioned why Christian felt that it was necessary for the legislature to dictate what kind of centers universities should have. Christian explained that he understood that schools were allowed to create gender and sexuality centers and that the legislature didn't have the power to stop them from doing so. To explain his position he offered a simile, suggesting that "if they were teaching students how to make terrorism bombs or murder or whatever" then the legislature would want to be sure that students were also being taught to love America. Likewise, he said, if universities are going to "teach alternate sexual behavior" then they should also teach "traditional values".

Castro, apparently unphased by Christian's comparison of queer people to terrorists (or his gross mischaracterization of the resources provided by college gender and sexuality centers), then asked what "pansexual" meant. Christian said that he didn't know, but that that was the kind of thing that these centers taught. The amendment passed: 110 yeas to 24 nays, the entire debate took 5 minutes. No one spoke against the amendment and only Castro questioned the need for it.

Christian's next proposed amendment (amendment #144) required Texas' universities to dedicate 10% of their classes to teaching "western civilization." Castro again questioned whether the legislature had the power to directly dictate what state universities taught. This time, however, he went so far as to raise a point of order against the amendment, claiming that it created "general law" (according to the House rules the budget can only be used to create funding for state agencies, it can not be used to create new laws). Speaker Joe Straus (R-San Antonio) ruled that the amendment did not create general law and debate continued.

Rep. Mike Villarreal (D-San Antonio) then spoke against the amendment. He questioned what Christian meant by "western civilization" and said that it was inappropriate for the legislature to start creating quotas about what kind of classes universities offered. Rep. Eddie Lucio III (D-San Bonito) then rose and asked Villarreal "have you been presented any information that defines 'western civilization' prior to this amendment?" Villarreal indicated that he had not (indeed, state statute contains no definition of "western civilization"). Lucio was followed by Rep. Mark Strama (D-Travis Co) who asked if the contributions of African Americans, Mexican Americans or Native Americans to our culture would be included in a "western civilization" class.

Castro made a motion to table the amendment. In accordance with House rules Christian came back to the microphone to explain why he thought that the amendment should not be tabled and to answer questions. Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) questioned Christian, trying to get him to explain what "western civilization" meant in the context of his amendment. Christian obfuscated, claiming that experts at the universities would be able to define what he meant. Anchia indignantly replied that the amendment appeared "very political and potentially insulting to the diverse membership of this body."

Rep. Borris Miles (D - Fort Bend Co) then grilled Christian about what parts of history would be included in a "western civilization" class: "would it include the Jim Crow South," he asked Christian "would it include the dragging of James Byrd that happened in your district?" (James Byrd Jr was killed in a horrific hate crime in 1998 in Jasper, TX which is in Christian's district) "It should, if that was part of the history," replied Christian. After much heated debate the vote to table the amendment succeeded: 108 yaes to 27 nays, the debate lasted 26 minutes. Five representatives spoke against the amendment.

Why did an amendment which promoted straight people succeed, while an amendment that promoted white people fail? Why did the people elected to represent us line up to decry racism, but not homophobia/transphobia? Why were members of the House so easily able to identify the coded language of "western civilization," but unwilling to seek a definition of "traditional values?"

Make no mistake, the racism inherit in amendment 144 is readily apparent. I am not naive enough to ask whether the oppression experienced by queer people is the same as the oppression experienced by people of color. There is not a quantifiable unit of measurement for oppression. It is not possible to hold one against the other and I refuse to be so arrogant as to try. This is not a question of "which is worse," but rather why, in this specific instance, homophobia/transphobia prevailed why racism was defeated.

Why? Because, frankly, it's easier to talk smack about someone when they're not in the room. At least 47 members of the Texas House are of African, Hispanic or Asian descent, including all 5 members who spoke against amendment 144. There is not a single out queer member of the legislature, in either the House or the Senate. When Castro questioned the need for amendment 143 he did so as a straight person who doesn't understand the queer experience. When he spoke against amendment 144 he did so as a Hispanic person who is well aware of the systemic racism historically perpetuated by the academic system.

Maybe if a queer person had been there they would have been able to ask questions like

• "What does 'traditional values' mean in the context of this amendment? Do you mean values like integrity, honesty, charity?"
• "Is it the author's belief that "traditional values" are not taught by gender and sexuality centers? Or that 'traditional values' are not shared by LGBT people?"
• "Is it the author's intent that these 'family and traditional values centers' support all families? or just specific types of families? Would a student with two dads, or two moms be welcome at the 'family and traditional value center?'"
• "Is it the author's belief that straight students need additional resources, not available through other venues? Is the author aware of straight students being disowned by their parents for being straight? Or of straight students attempting suicide because of society's disapproval of the straight lifestyle?"

But a queer person wasn't there, so instead we got snickering questions about what "pansexual" means.

It's our fault, really, the queer community's. We can't expect the straight people who've been elected to represent us to understand the queer experience unless we talk to them about it. When was the last time you called your representative and told them what it was like to be a LGBT college student (or high school student)? We are not in the room when decisions like this are made so we have to be certain that the people who are in the room hear from us regularly.

You can see the breakdown of who voted which way on HB 1, amendment 143 at Legislative Queery's new House Scorecard. It's good to know that 24 members of the 150-member house were willing to stand up for what's right (including one republican: Sarah Davis (R-Houston)!). It's disappointing to see who didn't.

In particular I'm disappointed that Anchia, who has historically been a staunch ally of the queer community (and who's district includes parts of the Oaklawn "gayborhood" in Dallas) decided to vote "present, not voting." "Present, not voting" means that the representative is on the floor when the vote takes place, but simply declines to have an opinion on the matter. Anchia should know better. He should know that "family and traditional values" means "straight people and homophobia/transphobia." He should know that amendment 143 will cause fewer universities in Texas to have resources for students who need help facing the transphobia and homophobia in our culture. He should also know that his constituents will not stand by while he cowardly refuses to take a stand on this issue. Anchia can be reached at(512) 463-0746, or by e-mail at Rafael.Anchia@house.state.tx.us

Day 65: Strama's Bully Bill: Take Three

Today is the 65th day of the regular session of the 82nd Texas Legislature. The House reconvenes at 10 am, the Senate at 11 am.

Last Friday, March 11, was the 60th day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature. The 60th day of session is the deadline for filing bills in the House, the Senate does not have a deadline (other than the end of session). That means that the 3,804 bill currently filed in the House are all the bills that will be filed.

This doesn't mean that new legislative ideas can't pop up. As bills begin to make their way through committee and on to the House floor they will be subject to amendment. Technically speaking, amendments in committee are actually made to the committee report, not to the bill. Each committee that hears a bill is charged with creating a report on that bill. Most of the time they don't bother creating the report unless the bill is "reported favorably", or approved by the committee. It is possible for committees to "report unfavorably" but they generally don't bother.

In addition to the text of the bill committee report always includes a "fiscal note" (an estimate of what the bill will cost the state); a "bill summary" (an everyday language report of what the bill does) and list of people who testified on the bill when it was heard in committee. The report may also contain, depending on the content of the bill:

• a dynamic economic impact statement (if bill impacts the number of jobs at state agencies),
• a criminal justice impact statement (if the bill would impact the number of people in state jails or the cost of housing people in state jails),
• an equalized education funding impact statement (if the bill changes the way the state distributes funds to local school districts),
• an actuarial impact statement (if the bill effects the state's public employee retirement system),
• a water development policy impact statement (if the bill creates a water district),
  
• a tax equity note (if the bill creates a tax).

The committee report may also contain suggested changes to the bill. This is known as a "committee substitute". Committee substitutes may not substantially change the intended purpose of the bill, but they can vary widely from the original content of the bill. The committee substitute is is only a suggestion by the committee. Until the House agrees to "take up" the bill, approves the committee report and then decides to consider the committee substitute instead of the original bill the committee substitute remains only a suggestion. Once the substitute is considered in lieu of the original bill it becomes the official version which is debated on the House floor.

This is the challenge currently facing Rep. Strama with his anti-bullying bill (HB 224). Strama has already offered one new version of his bill to the House Public Education committee. After holding a public hearing on the new version he has returned to the drawing board and is currently drafting a new version designed to address the concerns raised by the committee.

The biggest concern, by far, raised by members of the House Public Education committee and other House members is with the "cyber-bullying" portions of the bill. Strama's original version, and his first suggested committee substitute, would both allow school administrators to address on-line harassment that either 1) was sent from on campus or from a school event 2) was received on campus or at a school event or 3) was designed to disrupt the educational environment (for instance a tweet telling a student that they will be assaulted if they come to school the next day is designed to prevent that student from getting an education). Critics of the bill have argued that all off-campus behavior should be addressed by parents and law enforcement, not by school administrators and have characterized the cyber-bullying provisions as an "over-reach".

Much of the behavior that would be covered by Strama's narrowly-defined cyber-bullying provision is already illegal under Texas penal code. For instance, a tweet telling a student that they will be assaulted if they come to school the next day is a Class A misdemeanor under Texas penal code section 22.07, and creating a fake Facebook or Twitter account proporting to be another student and portraying that student as sexually lascivious is a third degree felony under Texas penal code section 33.07. Under currently law a teacher or administrator who is aware of this kind of on-line harassment cannot address it, except by calling local law enforcement.

Nobody gets into teaching because they like the idea of turning children who make bad decisions into felons. They get into teaching because they care about children and want to help them make good decisions. In revising his bill to make it more palatable to the committee I hope that Rep. Strama will, at the very least, include provisions that allow administrators to address off-campus behavior that is currently illegal using methods more appropriate to children, such as allowing administrators to require counseling or mandate participation in trainings designed to improve the decision-making skills of these would-be felons.

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.

Enumerated List to be Dropped from Bully Bill Reporting Requirement

The Dallas Voice reports that the reporting requirement proposed by the "big" anti-bullying bills (HB 224, SB 245) will be amended so that the provision that school districts file annual reports on instances of bullying in enumerated categories will now only require a report - with the specifics to be determined by the Texas Education Commission (TEA).

(HB 224 has been filed in the House, SB 245 in the Senate. The bills are nearly identical. It is common practice to file the same legislation in both the House and the Senate. Doing so allows bills to be considered by both sides simultaneously which can speed the process of a bill becoming a law. Since the Texas Legislature only meets every other year for 140 days speed is crucial in passing any law.)

HB 224 (by Strama (D-Travis County)) currently would require districts to specify in their annual reports if instances of bullying were based on the real or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or disability of the victim. SB 245 (by Davis (D-Fort Worth)) requires the same enumerated report but adds gender identity and expression to the list. (Strama filed this same bill last session, also without gender identity and expression, but added it to the list of attributes in committee).

In addition to the reporting requirements both bills would require school staff, administrators, students and volunteers to attend training on how to identity and respond to bullying, would allow bullies to be transferred to different classrooms or campuses than their victims (currently only the victim may be transferred) and would allow administrators to address cyber-bullying under limited conditions.

Neither bill currently contains a provision prohibiting schools from discriminating against teachers or students on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.


Lets face it, removing the enumerated list from the reporting requirement will make these good bills less good -- there is no getting around that. But (and it's an extremely ambivalent "but") the proposed change to these bills dramatically increases the chances of the legislature doing something to address the issue of bullying this session.

Let's, just for a second, pretend that instead of one bill in the House and one bill in the Senate that each did four things (training, transfers, cyber-bullying, reporting), we had four bills in the House and four bills in the Senate that each did one of those things. (Actually, bills that only tackle parts of this issue have been filed in both the House and Senate, such as Rep. Guillen's HB 24 which only addresses cyber-bullying and Sen. Whitmire's SB 205 which only covers the training requirement.) If 3 of those 4 bills (say... training, transfers and cyber-bullying) became law and the other one didn't it would be a major victory and would go a long way toward helping queer Texas school children. We would be upset the 4th one didn't pass, we would continue to fight for it, but getting 3 of the 4 through would be an accomplishment.

The situation at hand isn't even a case of a 3/4 victory since the reporting requirement will still be in the bill, albeit drastically and mournfully watered down. Plus, unlike a hypothetical situation where the reporting requirement was removed, we will not have to wait two years for the next legislative session to fight for an enumerated policy. By putting the decision of how exactly the reporting requirement will work on the TEA this bill would be granting the TEA what is called "rule-making authority".

Texas laws work on a three-tier system:

• First and foremost is the state constitution; its authority supersedes any other state law (but must comply with federal law). In order for the constitution to be amended 2/3 of both the House and Senate must approve a proposed amendment to be placed on a statewide ballot and then a majority of voters must vote for it.
• Next is statute and code, statute and code must comply with the state constitution (and federal law) but supersede all other state law. The Legislature may amend statute and code by a majority vote in both houses. The governor then has an opportunity to veto any proposed changes.
• Finally, at the bottom of the totem pole, is rule. Rule is created by state agencies. In order to create rules the agency must be authorized to do so by statute or code. Rules must comply with the state constitution and statute and code (as well as federal law).

The law requires that, in creating rules, state agencies hold public hearings. If HB 224 or SB 245 becomes law the TEA could start that process as early as this summer. If that happens we will have an opportunity (and a responsibility) to attend those hearings, en masse, to demand that both sexual orientation and gender identity and expression be including on the required reports.

I suspect Equality Texas, which announced the proposed changes to the bills, is going to receive a lot of criticism about this. (Some of which is warranted, given that the bills are being weakened.) I hope, however, that people notice what didn't happen:

The two bills (HB 224 and SB 245) differed from each other by only 5 words - "and gender identity and expression". I spoke with a staffer in Strama's office a couple of months ago asking why Strama did not include those words in his bill this session (since he added them in committee last session). The staffer was a consummate professional, which means she would never make a statement about a bill that her boss hadn't already approved, but I got the distinct impression that Strama left those 5 words off because he thought his bill had a better chance without them.

Over and over again the queer community has seen the lobby organizations that claim to represent us all throw the transgender community under the bus when it became politically expedient. It would have been very easy for Equality Texas to have done the same in this situation. Instead, they worked with Sen. Davis to be sure she understood why her Senate companion needed to include those 5 words and they continued to work to educate Rep. Strama about why his bill needed to do the same.

In a way (a very strange, very conflicted way) I'm glad to see "sexual orientation" removed from HB 224. I don't want to fight for a bill unless I can fight alongside by trans brothers and sisters. Personally, if those 5 words aren't included I don't want the two words that protect me ("sexual orientation") included either.

HB 224 and SB 245 were never perfect, they're not even the best anti-bullying bills filed this session (see HB 1386). Removing the enumerated list from the reporting requirement takes these bills, which were always the middle ground, and makes them weaker. But... we are dealing with the lives of children here. If all that gets through this legislature (this very conservative, very Republican legislature) is a single section of these two bills we will have improved those lives.

It's not enough, it is so not enough, and we must fight for more... but right now, as you're reading this, there is a 14 year old queer kid who is contemplating suicide because his teachers don't know how to see the pain that he is in. If we can help that kid, and the thousands of others like him, have a school that is even a fraction more aware of his predicament we have to do it.

Public Education Committee to Hear Bullying Bills

Two bills concerning bullying, HB24 and HB224, have been scheduled for public hearing on Tuesday, March 1 in the House Public Education Committee:

HB 24 by Rep. Ryan Guillen would allow schools to place students who engage in electronic harassment in alternative school if the communication was sent from school grounds or the communication was received on equipment that is school property. Current law does not recognize cyber-bullying and gives administrators no ability to address cyber-bullying that takes place off-campus (Legislative Queery's initial post on HB 24 is HERE)

HB 224 by Rep. Mark Strama requires all school districts to create a training program for staff, volunteers who work with students, students and parents designed to teach them to prevent, identify and respond to bullying and allows school administrators to transfer bullies to a different class or campus than their victims (under current law only the victim may be transferred). It creates a uniform definition of bullying in the education code, adding cyber-bullying and allows school administrators to address cyber-bullying that takes place off campus if the electronic communication is received on campus or at a school event or if it substantially disrupts school operations. The bill also includes a requirement that schools report statistics on bullying to the state. (Legislative Queery's initial post on HB 224 is HERE)

Chairman Rob Eissler scheduled both bills for the committee's regular hearing at 2:00 pm on Tuesday (or later if the House doesn't get out in time, which seems unlikely). Because of the similarities between the two bills it is likely that they will be discussed (or "laid out") at the same time. I do not expect the committee to eventually take a vote on both bills. Instead they will probably take any parts of Guillen's bill that they like better than Strama's and attach it to HB 224.

HB 224 was filed last session as HB 1323, which was also referred to the Public Education Committee and was eventually voted out (for Legislative Queery's somewhat exhaustive exploration of that bill's journey go HERE). HB 1323 was scheduled for public hearing on the 77th day of the 81st session, the fact that HB 224 is scheduled for public hearing on the 50th day gives me great hope. It shows that Chairman Eissler (who chaired the committee last session as well) is giving this issue more attention.

The committee will hear several bills during the hearing. The order the bills are taken in is completely at the chairman's discretion. Typically committee chairs will hear bills that have strong public interest first, so that people who have traveled to Austin to testify can get on their way, but there is no predicting the actual order.

Any member of the public may testify at a public hearing. All they have to do is go to the hearing room (E2.036), fill out a form and hand the form into one of the committee's staff, who will be sitting at the front of the room. People testifying before the committee are required to indicate which bills they are testifying about (so if someone wants to testify about both HB 24 and HB 224 they need to fill out two forms) and to say if they are testifying "For", "Against" or "On" the bill. (Generally people do not testify "On" the bill unless they are state employees who are their to provide factual or background information to the committee.) It is also possible to fill out the form as "present - not testifying" which creates a public record of the person's position without having to speak before the committee. Chairman Eissler has indicated that each person's testimony will be limited to three minutes.

Last session only two people testified against Strama's bill: a representative of the ACLU who believed that “shielding children from getting snubbed or being called names undermines children's ability to develop the coping mechanisms to be able to fend for themselves” and a representative from the radical right-wing "Freemarket Association" who did not testify. Conservative radio and "news" stations have begun to portray anti-bullying efforts as an insidious plot to push the "gay agenda" (whatever that means). I would not be surprised if there were more people testifying against the bill this session.

(By the way, the ACLU of Texas' phone number is (512) 478-7300 and their e-mail is info@aclutx.org -- I, for one, will be contacting them urging them not to testify in support of bullying as a vital educational experience this session.)

Seven of last session's committee members are back this time around: Eissler, Hochberg, Allen, Aycock, Dutton, Shelton and Webber. Eissler is about as conservative as they come, but his scheduling of the bill for hearing, plus his history of scheduling it in the past means that he could possibly vote in favor. Hochberg, Allen and Dutton have good histories of supporting the LGBT community and will likely support HB 224. Two sessions ago Aycock voted against an amendment by Rep. Garnet Coleman that would have required reporting very similar to HB 224's - I worry that that part of the bill will be a sticking point for him. Shelton and Webber are sophomore members of the House and don't have a strong voting record to base predictions on. Webber prides himself on his tech savvy and reliance on hard facts and statistics (he is known for fact-checking his fellow committee members during hearings using his laptop). He may be convinced to support HB 224 if given sufficient empirical data that the approach it proposes would achieve the desired effect (or if he is informed that in a 2010 Equality Texas poll 79.2% of Texas voters said that they support uniform anti-bullying legislation to prohibit harassment in schools, including the children of gay/lesbian parents or teens who are gay).

Four of the committee's members are new: Guillen, Huberty, Smith and Strama. It's a pretty safe bet that Strama and Guillen support their own bills. Huberty is a freshman, recently swept into office on the teabagger wave, it's pretty much impossible to predict his actions but I'm guessing he will look to the senior republican members of the committee (Eissler and Aycock) for direction. If Todd Smith votes for this bill I'll eat my hat. Expect him to offer helpful suggestions to parents who testify to the committee about encouraging their children not to stand out so much, and thus avoiding making themselves targets.

To pass out of committee anti-bullying legislation needs the support of the chairman and at least 6 "Yes" votes. I count: 5 definite Yes's, 1 maybe, 2 probably not's, 1 hell no, and 2 who the hell knows. Both of these bills have a very good chance of making it out of committee in some form, but the public will need to strongly express their support to the committee members to push anti-bullying legislation through committee and on to the House floor.

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

If you support anti-bullying legislation I encourage you to contact the members of the committee and ask for their support. The e-mail addresses and phone numbers for all the members and select staffers are below. There is also a copy-and-paste list of all the e-mail addresses at the bottom if you only have time to send one e-mail.

House Committee on Education Members

Rob Eissler, (Chair)
512-463-0797 Fax: 512-463-0898
rob.eissler@house.state.tx.us

Scott Hochberg, (Vice Chair)
512-463-0492 Fax: 512-463-5896
scott.hochberg@house.state.tx.us

Alma Allen
512-463-07445 Fax: 512-463-0761
alma.allen@house.state.tx.us

Jimmie Don Aycock
512-463-0684 Fax: 512-463-8987
jimmie.aycock@house.state.tx.us

Harold Dutton, Jr
512-463-0510 Fax: 512-463-8333
stephanie.russell@house.state.tx.us

Representative Ryan Guillen
512-463-0416 Fax: 512-463-1012
ryan.guillen@house.state.tx.us

Dan Huberty
512-463-0520 Fax: 512-463-1606
dan.huberty@house.state.tx.us

Mark Shelton
512-463-0608 Fax: 512-463-8342
mark.shelton@house.state.tx.us

Todd Smith
512-463-0522 Fax: 512-463-9529
todd.smith@house.state.tx.us

Mark Strama
512-463-0821 Fax: 512-463-1199
mark.strama@house.state.tx.us

Randy Weber
512-463-0707 Fax: 512-463-8717
randy.weber@house.state.tx.us

In addition each of the Representatives has a staffer whose primary responsibility is handling education issues:

Jenna Watts - Rob Eissler, (Chair)
jenna.watts_hc@house.state.tx.us

Becky Cohen - Scott Hochberg, (Vice Chair)
becky.cohen@house.state.tx.us

Brian Waldrup - Alma Allen
brian.waldrup@house.state.tx.us

Belinda Pustka - Jimmie Don Aycock
belinda.pustka@house.state.tx.us

Stephanie Russell - Harold Dutton, Jr.
stephanie.russell@house.state.tx.us

Cory Howell or Katy Johnson - Representative Ryan Guillen
cory.howell@house.state.tx.us
katy.johnson@house.state.tx.us

Maggie Irwin - Dan Huberty
maggie.irwin@house.state.tx.us

Sierra Stephens - Mark Shelton
sierra.stephens@house.state.tx.us

Trish Conradt - Todd Smith
patricia.conradt@house.state.tx.us

Mary Throop - Mark Strama
mary.throop@house.state.tx.us

Chara McMichael - Randy Weber
chara.mcmichael@house.state.tx.us

If you only have time to write one e-mail copy and paste the list below into the "to" field to reach all of the committee members and their education staffers.

rob.eissler@house.state.tx.us; scott.hochberg@house.state.tx.us; alma.allen@house.state.tx.us; jimmie.aycock@house.state.tx.us; stephanie.russell@house.state.tx.us; ryan.guillen@house.state.tx.us; dan.huberty@house.state.tx.us; mark.shelton@house.state.tx.us; todd.smith@house.state.tx.us; mark.strama@house.state.tx.us; randy.weber@house.state.tx.us; jenna.watts_hc@house.state.tx.us; becky.cohen@house.state.tx.us; brian.waldrup@house.state.tx.us; belinda.pustka@house.state.tx.us; stephanie.russell@house.state.tx.us; cory.howell@house.state.tx.us; katy.johnson@house.state.tx.us; maggie.irwin@house.state.tx.us; sierra.stephens@house.state.tx.us; patricia.conradt@house.state.tx.us; mary.throop@house.state.tx.us; chara.mcmichael@house.state.tx.us; rita.ashley@house.state.tx.us

HB 1386: The Best Solution to Teen Suicide (That Will Never Happen)

HB 1386 filed by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D - Houston) is a compassionate, well thought out, reasonable approach to the issue of teen suicide, (a problem that has recently captured the nation's attention in the wake of a string of suicides by LGBT young people, including Asher Brown of Houston) and it doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming law.

The bill, co-authored by Rep. Jessica Farrar (D - Houston) would create a statewide training program to help, not only teachers, but also police, nurses, social workers, counselors and school administrators and staff recognize children at risk of suicide and give them tools to provide assistance. HB 1386 also contains a non-discrimination policy for Texas public schools that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity and expression with a provision requiring schools to regularly train their employees on how the non-discrimination policy applies.

Similar to Rep. Strama's HB 224 and Sen. Davis' SB 245, HB 1386 would require schools to compile annual reports of instances of bullying e and would allow bullies to be transferred to different campuses or classrooms (currently the victim may be transferred, but the bully may not). HB 1386 would also allow administrators to address instances of cyber-bullying, but unlike HB 224 and SB 245 it does not contain a provision specifically allowing administrators to address off-campus cyber-bullying.

The single biggest difference between HB 1386 and every other bullying bill filed this session is the non-discrimination policy. HB 1386 has the audacity to suggest that it is wrong for queer kids to be discriminated against in public schools -- that's what's going to keep it from becoming law. The far right in this state has a hard time accepting that teenagers have any sort of sexual orientation, let alone that that orientation might, even on occasion, be towards people of the same sex. Just look at our paleolithic sex education programs that refuse to teach kids how their bodies work or the actual mechanics of how someone might get pregnant. Conservatives don't want to believe that there are queer kids, so it's nigh on impossible for them to believe that those kids need to be protected.

If, perchance, a right winger is able to wrap their head around the concept of queer kids the next argument thrown up is than enumerated non-discrimination policies (policies that list sets of attributes that are protected) amount to a kind of "reverse discrimination", that protecting something like race or gender identity means that white, cisgender kids aren't being protected. This argument is, perhaps, the single most revealing statement ever made by the right: the assumption that white, male, straight, christian, native-born American, cisgender people do not have race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nation of origin or gender identity. Under this assumption white, male, straight, christian, native-born American, cisgender people are "normal" and anyone who doesn't posses those exact attributes is a deviation from the norm who wants special deference for being different.

Despite it's chances of being passed approaching zero I'm extremely happy to see HB 1386 filed. By presenting an alternative approach to addressing the issues of teen suicide and bullying Reps. Coleman and Farrar have made the Strama and Davis bills appear to be the middle ground that they are. This will hopefully give political cover to moderate Republicans who might otherwise be reluctant to support HB 224 and SB 245.

It's too bad that the bolder, more comprehensive approach seems so distasteful to the right, because, if passed. HB 1386 would save lives, maybe even lives dear to those right wingers.

-------------
UPDATE: Coleman has refiled HB 1386 as HB 2343 - the language is identical with the exception that the bill has been named "Asher's Law" in honor of Asher Brown, the 13 year old Houston area boy who committed suicide after enduring prolonged vicious bullying at school.

House Committee Assignments

Texas House Speaker Joe Straus has finally announced the committee assignments for the 82nd Texas House. As I predicted last month the partisan break down of the committee chairs roughly reflects the distribution of party control in the House with 11 Democratic chairs and 25 Republicans (not including the 4 select and joint committee chairs, all republicans).

House committees that queer Texans will want to watch very carefully:

Public Education - will get the anti-bullying bills. Chairman Rob Eissler scheduled the hearing for HB 1323 (last sessions anti-bullying bill) very late last session, but he did schedule a hearing and the committee eventually voted to send the bill to the floor for a vote of the whole House. Unfortunately, time ran out last session (more info on HB 1323). Rep. Strama, whose HB 224 is expected to be the water bearer for anti-bullying bills, is on the committee this session.

Public Health - will get HB 405, which would allow same-sex parents to get accurate birth certificates for their children. Chairwoman Lois Kolkhorst was visibly moved by testimony last session on this bill, lets hope that causes her to schedule it for an early hearing.

Criminal Jurisprudence - will get HB 604, the repeal of Texas's unconstitutional sodomy law and HB 172, the study of the effectiveness of the Texas Hate Crimes Act. Chairman Gallego has a solid record of voting in the best interest of queer Texans, but repealing the unconstitutional sodomy law, however common-sense, is going to a hard sell. Plus, with virulent homophobes Wayne Christian, Bill Zedler and Will Hartnett it seems unlikely that common sense will beat out bigotry. The Hate Crimes study has a better chance, it made it out of committee last session, but it's hard to predict what will happen this session.

Insurance - will get HB 208 prohibiting insurance companies from discriminating on the basis and sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. Chairman Smithee hasn't let this bill through in past sessions and I'd be shocked if he lets it through this session. Smithee takes every chance he can get to hurt queer Texans, he's not likely to pass this chance up either.

State Affairs - will get HB 665, which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. This bill, or a version of it, has been filed every session for over a decade, and it never gets a hearing. While new Chairman Byron Cook is an immense improvement over old Chairman Burt Solomons it's unlikely that this bill will go anywhere.

Now that we have committees bills are going to start moving left and right. The 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature is finally getting going!

The Anti-Bullying Bill Most Likely to be THE Anti-Bullying Bill

Rep. Mark Strama (D-Travis County) filed HB 224 last Tuesday (the second day of filing for the session). HB 224 is substantially similar to the anti bullying bill he filed last session (HB 1323). (Read Legislative Queery's day by day account of that bill's history HERE.)

The bill is a fairly comprehensive approach to fighting bullying. It requires all school districts to create a training program for staff, volunteers who work with students, students and parents designed to teach them to prevent, identify and respond to bullying. It also would allow school administrators to transfer bullies to a different class or campus than their victims if the victims parents or guardians request it (under current law only the victim may be transferred) and creates a uniform definition of bullying in the education code, adding cyberbullying. HB 224 would allow school administrators to address cyberbullying that takes place off campus if the electronic communication is received on campus or at a school event or if it substantially disrupts school operations. The bill also includes a requirement that schools report statistics on bullying to the state.

I really like this bill with one - very notable - exception... the reporting requirement. Schools would be required to report bullying based on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or disability. They would not be required to report bullying on the basis of gender identity or expression (GI&E).

Beyond throwing the transgender community under the bus (which is bad enough), this omission creates a glaring loophole that prevents this legislation from being as useful as it could be for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual students. Most of the time when a queer kid is bullied it is not because of who they are attracted to, but because their attackers feel that the victim is not behaving in a gender appropriate way. "Butch" girls and "sissy" boys bear the brunt of the bullies rage, that's not about sexual orientation - that's about gender expression.

Without the inclusion of GI&E in the reporting requirement many school administrators will not report harassment that that does not specifically include a reference to the victims sexual orientation. This will create a loophole where, for instance, bullying a male student for being a "fag" gets the bully in trouble, but bullying them for being a "sissy" doesn't. Bullies are smarter than many people give them credit. They will find this loophole and exploit it.

HB 224 is likely to be the anti-bullying "water bearer" this session. Most, if not all, of the bills designed to address bullying will be referred to the Public Education committee. It is probable that the chairperson for the committee will schedule all of them for public hearing at the same time. This is done for practical reasons. It allows the committee to hear from a number of experts and citizens all at once and to consider the different solutions being offered in direct comparison to each other.

After the hearing one of the Public Education committee members will likely offer a "committee substitute". This is a way of amending the bill in committee by completely replacing it with a new bill on the same topic. The committee substitute will incorporate the preferred solutions offered by the different bills the committee considered in the hearing, creating a kind of super-bill.

Because Strama has a history of carrying this sort of legislation and has been very public in his support for it his bill is likely to be the one that is amended by committee substitution becoming the only anti-bullying bill that makes it out of committee, but with elements of other bills attached. That makes it very important to pay attention to H.B. 224.

It also makes it important for H.B. 224 to have a number of co-authors. Co-authorship is a way for a house member to put their name on another member's bill. It allows them to show their support even before the bill gets to the floor of the house and everybody has a chance to vote on it. Last session this bill had 19 House members who were willing to put their names on it. Including 1 Republican.

Strama will need to talk to his fellow members to get their support. But it is also important that they hear from their constituents. If you feel that HB 224 is a good idea please consider calling your State Representative and asking them to become a co-author. If you do not know who your state representative is you can find out at http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/find-your-representative/

Bullying IS a Criminal Matter - That's the Problem

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee held a local federal hearing on bullying last Monday at Houston City Hall. Rep. Al Green; Houston City Council members Bradford, Jones, Adams and Houng; a representative of HISD; State Senator John Whitmire and State Reps Alma Allen and Sylvester Turner also attended (State Reps. Jessica Farrar and Garnet Coleman (Who have filed legislation in the past to address the issue) were unable to attend and sent their regards).

There was moving testimony from children, parents and community members (including Equality Texas Board Member Rob Scamardo), but the concern repeatedly raised, particularly from Sen. Whitmire and and Rep. Allen, was a fear of criminalizing childish behavior. Whitmire spoke at length about his fear that a legislative solution to bullying would send troubled children to prison or juvenile hall, creating angry, bitter and uneducated adults whose behavior would be yet more troubling.

They're right. Simply marching bullies away from school in handcuffs is not a solution, we must teach our children that bullying is unacceptable. Which is why a legislative solution to the problem is so desperately needed. Because right now, in many cases, the only solution available to administrators is to treat children as criminals.

For instance, if a child set up a fake Facebook profile from home purporting to be another child, and posting pictures and statuses denigrating of that other child the only solution currently available would be to charge the offender with online harassment (Penal Code 33.07) , a third degree felony. Few adults want to create a felon out of child who made a cruel decision, and so fake social networking profiles continue to be used by bullies. School administrators are unable to do anything to address the issue because the actions take place off of school campus.

What about a child that, on school campus, daily threatens to attack another child? They could be charged with making terroristic threats (Penal Code 22.07), but school administrators often fear overreacting, so they tell the terrified victim to avoid the bully, or at most offer to transfer the victim to another class or school, because, frankly they don't have many other options.

Of course a bully who physically attacks another child could be charged with assault or with any number of other offenses, but experience shows us that administrators rarely call the police, but will, at most, suspend the bully, so that the victim must face an enraged bully again in just a few short days. Again, even the option of suspension is only available if the attack took place at school, otherwise administrators hands are tied.

This lack of action, this fear of reporting crimes to the police, is particularly shocking considering that teachers and administrators are bound by law to report any abuse or neglect of a child, regardless of who commits the abuse (Family Code Chapter 261). The law includes in the definitions of abuse "mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning" - which would certainly encompass bullying. So strong is the compulsion to not criminalize children that teachers and administrators routinely open themselves to legal liability through their lack of action.

So if creating crimes that would prevent bullying is not working - what is the solution?

Several common sense ideas were introduced last session - none of which became law:

Rep. Mark Strama's HB 1323 would have allowed school administrators to address bullying that took place off campus, so long as it affected the education environment, required schools to notify both the parents of victims of bullying and the parents of the bully, allowed administrators to transfer bullies to other schools or classrooms, and would have created a statewide reporting requirement, allowing for better tracking and understanding of bullying.

Rep. Garnet Coleman's HB 3746 would have created a non-discrimination policy for public schools covering "actual or perceived ethnicity, color, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or national origin" that would apply to both students and employees of public schools. It would have also required school district to offer regular training to staff and would have creating a statewide reporting system for instances of bullying.

Rep. Jessica Farrar's HB 2923 would have created a similar nondiscrimination policy.

If people like Sen. Whitmire are concerned about the fight against bullying turning children into criminals then they should be supporting solutions like these. Under the current law administrators and teachers rarely have non-criminalizing solutions to the problem of bullying, and they seem unwilling to pursue criminalizing solutions, to their own peril. We must give teachers and administrators the tools and education they need to address this issue, or suffer a generation of queer youth lost to depression and suicide.

Anti-Bullying Legislation in Texas Part III

Be sure to read Part I and Part II

What can be done to insure that anti-bullying legislation passes in 2011?

Rep. Strama is expected to re-file HB 1323 (which will then get a new number), but he needs to be pressured to file it earlier, preferably in November. The earlier a bill is filed the earlier it gets referred to committee and the earlier the process can start. If you would like to contact Rep. Strama and ask that he file the bill earlier this time you can call his office at (512) 463-0821 or e-mail him at mark.strama@house.state.tx.us

The Chair of the Public Education Committee needs to be pressured to schedule the hearing for the bill as soon as possible. It is possible that the House may have a new Speaker next session, which will likely mean a new committee chair, and even if the same Speaker remains in power the chair may change. As soon as that person is named anyone who supports anti-bullying legislation needs to contact them and start asking that this legislation is scheduled for a hearing as soon as possible.

A State Senator needs to be found who is willing to carry the legislation in the Senate. Maybe your Senator will? If you don't know who your Senator is you can find out here: http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/Members.htm#FYI Even if they are not willing to carry the legislation it is good for them to know that they have constituents that support it.

In the end it comes down to that 140 days. 140 days to improve the lives of every student in Texas. That's not a lot of time. We must start now if we are going to give the next Asher Brown the support they need.

Anti-Bullying Legislation in Texas Part I

The recent rash of suicides of queer youth, including the death of 13 year old Texas Student Asher Brown, has caused many in the queer community to call for anti-bullying legislation. What some people may not realize is that this is not a new idea.

Last session (2009) Rep. Mark Strama (Travis County) introduced a fairly comprehensive bill that would have given school administrators new tools to fight bullying in public schools. HB 1323 would have allowed School administrators to address bullying that took place off campus, so long as it affected the education environment, required schools to notify both the parents of victims of bullying and the parents of the bully, allowed administrators to transfer bullies to other schools or classrooms (currently the victim is transferred), and would have created a statewide reporting requirement, allowing for better tracking and understanding of bullying. All pretty common sense steps to help administrators reduce bullying. So why didn't it pass?

There wasn't much opposition.

The ACLU spoke against it in committee, and distributed a flier to lawmakers that said, in part - "“Shielding children from getting snubbed or being called names undermines children's ability to develop the coping mechanisms to be able to fend for themselves”. In other words 'bullying, harassment, terror are just parts of growing up' (which is why I stopped renewing my ACLU membership).

The "Freemarket Association", a right-wing, no-government organization that calls itself a "Think Tank" and is associated with the Liberty Institute (the organization that wrote the Chisum/Staples brief against the Dallas Gay Divorce Case), also registered their opposition, but couldn't be bothered to testify against it.

On the other hand the legislation was supported by, among others: the Texas State Teachers Association, the Association of Texas Professional Educators, the Texas Network of Youth Services, and the National Association of Social Workers - Texas Chapter.

In the end not one member of the 11 member House Public Education Committee voted against it.

So, if the bill had overwhelming support, why didn't it become law? Read Part II to find out.

Can Dallas Elect a Gay Man to the Texas House Part II

Be sure to read Part I

Democrat Pete Schulte, an out Gay man, is running against Republican Dan Branch in House District 108. The District has been held by the Republicans since 1991 and Branch has won every race by 16% or better. Does Schulte have a chance?

Yes, but it’s a long shot. Branch’s advantage is that the entire “Park Cities” area is in District 108, he has consistently won the District by winning the Park Cities. Any opponent must put together a broad coalition of hipsters, yuppies, ageing hippies, African-Americans and Latin Americans to win. Not an easy task.

The good news is that Schulte and Branch are not alone in this race; Libertarian Candidate Jarrett Woods is also running, if he appears on the ballot it should draw 4-5% of Branch’s vote leaving Schulte with a 5,000 or so vote difference to catch up.

How can he do it?

Run AGAINST Branch – Schulte can talk until he’s blue in the face about all the good he’s going to do in the House, but unless he’s willing to talk about the bad that Branch has done he will lose. I am hopeful that Schulte will be willing to do this. When he ran for the Democratic Nomination for Sheriff two years ago he was not shy about discussing the incumbent’s short comings (Full disclosure – I volunteered for the incumbent’s campaign.)

Branch, as chair of the House Higher Education Committee, fought against Texas’ “Robin Hood” school funding system, which redistributed money from wealthy school districts, like the Park Cities (Branch’s base), to poorer districts like the Dallas Independent School District. Voters whose children go to DISD need to know that Branch doesn’t think that their children deserve the same quality education as the children of rich people.

Branch Authored legislation (HB 52) last year that would have allowed Texas universities to limit the number of students they admit under the “Top 10 percent” rule (“Top 10 percent” requires state universities to admit Texas high school students who graduate in the top 10% of their class. Since its inception it has dramatically increased the number of students admitted to top universities like UT and A&M from poorer inner cities schools). So not only does Dan Branch think that children who go to DISD shouldn’t receive the same quality high school education that rich children get, he doesn’t think they should receive the same quality college education.

Schulte also needs to link Branch to the State Board of Education (the controversial state body that has made national headlines lately for trying to remove African-American and Hispanic historical figures from text books and removing Thomas Jefferson from parts of the curriculum). Branch has been praised by Coalition for American Traditions and Ethics, the same people who have been pushing the SBOE changes, because the committee he chairs (the House Committee on Higher Education) is conducting a study on offering college courses on “Western civilization and American traditions”, code for eliminating the role of people of color in history. Schulte needs to corner Branch into speaking out against the SBOE, which will cut his hard right base and drive more voters to the libertarian candidate.

(One note on running against Branch on education issues: “the price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative”, Schulte needs to formulate his own plan for addressing school funding, I suggest he have a conversation with Rep. Scott Hochberg to figure out what to say.)

Don’t avoid the Gay issue – Branch has run in the past on the “Sanctity of Marriage”. Schulte is not only a gay man, but he is also one of the attorneys in the Dallas Gay Divorce Case. You better believe that gay marriage is going to become an issue in this race. If Branch is smart he will wait until mid October to bring it up, and he’ll do it via proxy by getting someone else to bring it up. Schulte needs to control the conversation. He should figure out what he is going to say and say it early in the race so he has time to make his position clear.

Get Web Savvy – Schulte finally set up a Facebook fan page this week, he still doesn’t have a twitter account and his webpage is static and bland with very little information on issues. Branch is way out ahead of him on this front, Schulte needs to catch up.

Use the Independent Press – The Dallas Morning News editorial page loves Branch. Fortunately the people Schulte needs to reach don’t read the Dallas Morning News. He needs to start writing op-eds for the many small African-American papers that are based in South Dallas. He should call Univision and set up interviews and have an open door policy with the Dallas Observer and Dallas Voice. These smaller venues will let him get his message out and stretch his campaign dollar.

Speak Spanish – or hire someone who does. House District 108 is almost a third Hispanic. Every single piece of literature and every piece of web communication that the Schulte campaign puts out needs to be translated into Spanish. Schulte should also court the Spanish speaking press. One of the biggest national news items right now is the Arizona “Show me your papers” immigration law, which several Texas lawmakers are vowing to duplicate. Schulte should come out strongly against the law and challenge Branch to do the same. This will help him not only in the Hispanic community but also with the hipsters and ageing hippies in his battleground precincts.

Talk to Rep. Senfronia Thompson – Rep. Thompson is the longest serving Democrat in the House, and arguably one of the most powerful, she is also a strong ally of the queer community. More than that, she knows how to run a campaign in diverse urban districts. Schulte should drive to Houston, buy Rep. Thompson dinner, and soak up whatever advice she has to offer.

Get good proxies – Schulte is a white gay lawyer, classifications that are going to make him suspect in some of his lower income precincts, if he wants more than just the party faithful to vote he needs to have people who are trusted in those areas vouch for him. He can start by turning to his neighboring House District Members, Rep. Anchia and Rep. Johnson , who can help with his Hispanic and African American neighborhoods. He should also seek the support of State Sen. Royce West, a major power broker in Dallas Politics, and Rep. Lon Burnam, the sweetheart of aging hippies throughout Texas. It’s important that he gets these people to campaign for him, not just endorse but to show up at campaign events and vouch for him.

Register Voters – The south eastern half of district 108 has very low voter turnout, and lower voter registration rates. Schulte needs to partner with community organizations like the People Empowerment Project and Organizing for America to register voters, and not just by setting up a table in front of the local gay coffee shop. He needs to organize his volunteers to go door to door, particularly in battleground precincts in the Lower Greenville and Uptown neighborhoods which have younger, more transient populations.

Court precinct chairs – Every voting precinct has a Democratic precinct chair. This person is supposed to work to get out the vote in the precinct. Schulte needs to remind them of that. Precinct chairs know the neighborhood better than anyone else and have tremendous potential to help Schulte, but only if someone stays on them to do their job.

Ask for help - Schulte needs money, and he needs volunteers – which means he needs to ask for them. Schulte has already attended the Victory Fund training, which is a step in the right direction, but he will need to outspend Branch considerably to win this district, and his January Ethics Commission filing shows almost no fundraising.

He is also going to need an army of on-the-ground volunteers who can go door to door and stand on street corners. Fortunately Dallas is home to a huge queer activist community that is ripe for recruitment. Schulte needs to attend the next several meetings of Equality March Texas and ask for volunteers. He then needs to find a donor who will pay to send them to Rep. Mark Strama’s “Campaign Academy” (and again there are donors in the queer activist community who will do this) so they can learn how political campaigns differ from activist campaigns.

The challenge in recruiting from this base is that they tend to be suspicious of the political system; Schulte can capitalize on his prestige as one of the lawyers in the Dallas Divorce Case to convince them that he is not just another establishment politician.

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

In short Schulte will need to run an aggressive campaign if he has any hope of finding the 5,000 or so extra votes he needs to win. Let’s see if he’ll do it.