Top 5 Texas Senators 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 31 Texas Senators 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

Rodney Ellis (D-Houston)

Score: 99 points Grade: A Ellis's district includes the historic "gayborhood" of Montrose in Houston as well as most of the district of Rep. Garnet Coleman, LQ's top ranked member of the House. It's largely his sponsorship of Coleman's HB 1386 (teen suicide prevention) and HB 2229 (making permanent the HIV Medication Advisory Committee) that elevated Ellis to the top of this list. His perfect voting record and authorship of the Senate version of HB 2229 (SB 1821) didn't hurt either.

#2

Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth)

Score: 98 points Grade: A It seems unfair that Davis is number two and not number one: she filed the only piece of Senate legislation this session to even mention sexual orientation and gender identity and expression (her comprehensive anti-bullying bill SB 242) and was on the forefront of every anti-bullying effort in the Senate this session, co-authoring Whitmire's SB 205 (expanding and clarifying anti-bullying portions of student codes of conduct) and co-sponsoring HB 1942 (the anti-bullying "super" bill). It's only Ellis' sponsorship of Rep. Coleman's House bills that inched Davis out of the number one spot. Davis previously held the Fort Worth City Council seat currently held by Joel Burns (of "it gets better" fame) and is outspoken and passionate in her support of the LGBT community.

#3

Judith Zaffirini (D-Larado)

Score: 96 points Grade: A Zaffirini's anti-bullying legislation didn't get much press this session. She filed two excellent bills: SB 42, which would have included cyber-bullying in the statutory definition of bullying; and SB 66, which would have closed a loophole in the Education Code that prevents students who have been transferred in the last year from being sent to alternative school, even for egregious or violent behavior. Zaffirini is known for her strong work ethic. In 23 years of service in the Texas Senate she has never missed a vote. She applied that dedication to the issue of school bullying this year, supporting every anti-bullying bill that came to the Senate floor.

#4 (tie)	Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio)
	Score: 95 points Grade: A Van de Putte was a co-author on Davis' comprehensive anti-bullying bill SB 242 and eventually sponsored anti-bullying "super" bill HB 1942 in the House. A pharmacist, Van de Putte is known for her passionate advocacy for children, both in the House where she served for 10 years and in the Senate where she's served since 1999.

#4 (tie)

John Whitmire (D-Houston)

Score: 95 points Grade: A Whitmire spoke last fall at a public hearing on bullying about the need to address the issue without creating laws that turned children into criminals for making stupid or cruel choices. He put his money where is mouth is this session by filing SB 205, which carefully laid out guidelines for the anti-bullying provisions of student codes of conduct school districts are required to adopt. Unfortunately the bill died in the House Public Education Committee, but some of its ideas were incorporated in anti-bullying "super" bill HB 1942, which Whitmire co-authored. The longest currently serving member of the Texas Senate, Whitmire carries significant influence among his peers which this session he chose to use in defense of the victims of bullying.

That's the top five. We've already published the Top 10 House Members and the Worst 10 House members and will get the rest of the list up soon including the Worst 5 Texas Senators, 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.

Day 140: Sine Die

Today is the 140th and final day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature. The House will reconvene at 10 am, the Senate at 10:30 am.

A wave of developments over the weekend make a special session all but guaranteed. Late Saturday night news broke that the closed-door negotiations on renewing the Texas Windstorm Insurance program had broken down. TWI is the insurer of last resort for people living in areas prone to hurricanes that are unable to obtain insurance through private companies. The program is set to expire this year. If TWI is not renewed many homeowners along the coast will not be able to obtain windstorm insurance.

The House approved the compromise version of HB 1, the state budget, on Saturday, the Senate on Sunday, but SB 1811, a fiscal matters bill that complements the budget went down in the most spectacular fashion Sunday night. SB 1811 became a vehicle for a number of other fiscal matters bills that died in the House, including one that determines funding formulas for public education, perhaps the single most controversial topic of the session. Republican lawmakers have pushed a school funding formula that cuts current public education spending by 4 billion, while preserving tax breaks for industry. Democratic lawmakers have fought hard to restore education funding but their reduced numbers in both chambers have proved impediments.

Sen. Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth) filibustered SB 1811 until late Sunday night, effectively killing the bill. Davis is a first term Senator who won a historically Republican district on the strength of the "Obama Surge" in the 2008 election. Legislative districts are redrawn every 10 years in response to the census, making 2011 a redistricting year. Senate Republicans have redrawn Davis' district to cut her out of her district, making her re-election unlikely. With nothing to lose Davis choose to spend what might be her last legislative session fighting for children, killing SB 1811 and ensuring a special session. (Technically a 4/5 majority of the Senate (or 25 Senators) could revive SB 1811 today, but that is unlikely.)

The Texas Constitution allows the Governor to call a special session to allow the Legislature to address emergent issues, or to consider business not completed during their regular 140 day session. Any special session is limited to the issues for which it was called, so if Governor Perry calls back the legislature to consider TWI and public education funding, those are the only things they will be able to consider.

While forcing school finance to be decided in a special session is a good thing for Texas' students in general, it puts queer students at public universities at risk. Wayne Christian (R-Center) has tried to amend multiple bills to prevent Texas universities from having GLBT resource centers. He was originally successful in amending HB 1, the state budget, but his amendment was removed by the Senate. If a special session is called to consider public education funding, which seems likely, he will have another opportunity to offer his amendments, and another opportunity to deprive queer college students of a much needed resource.

When the House and Senate Adjourn today they will do so "Sine Die," a Latin phrase meaning "without a day." In Texan it's pronounced "Sigh-nee Dye-ee," and means that the date for the 82nd legislature to reconvene is unknown. Perry can set the special session to begin pretty much whenever he wants, including tomorrow. It is likely that he will announce the official date today, shortly after the final adjournment of both Houses.

Senate Adjourns - SB 723 still on Schedule for Tomorrow

The Texas Senate has adjourned until 10 am tomorrow. SB 723, the anti trans marriage bill remains on the regular order of business for tomorrow but has been removed from the intent calendar. Unconfirmed reports indicated that staffers for five of the twelve Democratic Senators have said that their boss is opposed the bill: Leticia Van De Putte (San Antonio), Rodney Ellis (Houston), Royce West (Dallas), Wendy Davis (Fort Worth) and Jose Rodriquez (El Paso). West, Ellis and Davis' offices have confirmed their opposition, Van De Putte and Rodriquez' offices have not returned my calls.

That leaves 7 Senate Democrats who may still be on the fence. In particular Carlos Uresti's (San Antonio) office has wavered on his position, with one staffer calling bigoted SB 723 a "simple clean-up bill." Even if you have called before please do it again. If all 12 Senate Democrats oppose the bill it can not come up for a vote. We only have to keep the pressure on for a little more than a week, until May 21st, and this bill will die. The numbers of the remaining seven uncommitted offices are below.

Mario Gallegos (512) 463-0106
mario.gallegos@senate.state.tx.us

Kirk Watson (512) 463-0114
kirk.watson@senate.state.tx.us

John Whitmire (512) 463-0115
john.whitmire@senate.state.tx.us

Carlos I. Uresti (512) 463-0119
carlos.uresti@senate.state.tx.us

Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa (512) 463-0120
juan.hinojosa@senate.state.tx.us

Judith Zaffirini (512) 463-0121
judith.zaffirini@senate.state.tx.us

Eduardo A. (Eddie) Lucio, Jr. (512) 463-0127
eddie.lucio@senate.state.tx.us

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.

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.

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.

Day 22: Senate Bills Start to Move

Today is the 22nd day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature. The House reconvenes at 10 am, the Senate at 11.

The Senate began referring bills to committee yesterday, SB 42 (transfer of cyberbullies), SB 66 (transfer student loophole) and SB 205 (anti-bullying policy) have all been referred to the Committee on Education, which has its first hearing this morning, as has SB 245, the big anti-bullying bill sponsored by Sen. Davis.

The Senate Committee on Education will likely form a subcommittee to deal with these bills when it meets today. The subcommittee will then hold a public hearing and report its findings to the whole committee. With only 118 days left this session it's important that that happens as soon as possible. I expect the subcommittee to offer a substitute (a way of amending the bill by replacing it completely with a new bill) that incorporates ideas from some or all of the four Senate bills that have been filed on the subject.

We still do not have committee assignments in the House. Until that happens all of the House bills are in limbo waiting to be referred to committee.

It's pre-kindergarten day at the capitol! There are a number of events, including a model pre-K classroom in the basement (it's not as creepy as it sounds). Also, Texas CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) will be meeting with lawmakers today and a rally of people opposed to paddling children will be held this afternoon at 3 pm. With all the events centered around children's well-being it's a good day to call your elected officials and remind them about the importance of anti-bullying legislation. You can find the contact information for your representatives HERE.

Day 11: Friday Call Day

Today is the 11th day of the 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature. Both the House and Senate will reconvene on Monday at 1:30 pm. The Senate is expected to begin what is certain to be an impassioned debate on voter suppression legislation. The House may finally adopt rules.

Senate committee assignments are also expected which means bills should start being referred to committee. Of particular interest is SB 245 by Sen. Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth) which proposes comprehensive and inclusive anti-bullying measures. We'll be watching that carefully and will let you know as soon as it's referred to committee.

Today is Friday, which means that most of the representatives and senators are back in their district offices in your cities and neighborhoods. Fridays are great days to call your local office and ask for support from the people elected to represent you. This is particularly important if you know that your elected officials are not supportive of the queer community.

To find the phone number for your representative and senator's district offices go HERE. Put in your address and press enter, then scroll down the page until you see the listing for state senator and state representative and find the phone numbers for their district office. Now put those numbers in your phone's address book so you don't have to keep looking them up!

For a suggested script for your phone call read Legislative Queery's post from Day 4.
You can call about any topic that's important to you. For lists of bills that have been filed this session check out the tabs at the top of this page.

I suggest calling your representative about HB 604 by Farrar, which would repeal the state's unconstitutional ban on "Homosexual Conduct". Ask them to "co-author HB 604". Equality Texas has an excellent fact sheet on the bill HERE.

Sen. Davis has been unabashed in her support for anti-bullying legislation. I want to thank her by reiterating my suggestion from last week to call your senator and ask them to "co-author SB 245". The Equality Texas fact sheet is HERE.

State Senate Adopts Rules

The Texas State Senate has officially adopted its rules for the 82nd legislature. The Senate rules are similar to the House with the most notable exception being that the Senate is required to consider bills in the order they are filed, while the House may consider them in almost any order they see fit.

Of course the Senate never actually follows that rule. Instead they take a vote to set aside the rule to take up bills out of order. Since a vote to set aside the rules requires two-thirds of the Senate this effectively creates a requirement that all bills in the Senate must have two-thirds of the Senators support (or, at least, lack of opposition) to pass.

Sen. Dan Patrick had campaigned in the lead up to the adoption of rules to remove this particular operational quirk, but was unsuccessful. However, the Senate did choose to maintain the loophole added last year that allows legislation about voter identification to bypass the 2/3 vote. (Last session this voter suppression loophole created bedlam when Democratic leaders in the House slowed the process to a crawl to prevent the passage of the Senate's voter suppression legislation.)

The Senate's rules lay out the committee structure for the Senate. Now that the Senate has committees the next step is for Lt. Governor Dewhurst to appoint chairs and members of those committees. Only after that is done can the Senate get down to the process of actually considering legislation.

Queer Texans will want to watch carefully to see who is appointed to the Senate Education Committee, which will almost certainly be given the duty of hearing several anti-bullying bills which have already been filed (SB 42, SB 66, SB 205, and SB 245). Of particular interest is SB 245 by Sen. Davis (D-Fort Worth). SB 245 is, by far, the most comprehensive of the bills filed thus far and is likely to serve as the "water bearer" for any Senate action on bullying.

(To save time both House and Senate Committees will often condense several bills on a single topic into a kind of super-bill which contains elements of all of the proposals, this super-bill is known as the "water bearer" and carries the bill number of one of its component bills, usually the most comprehensive. SB 245 is likely to be the "water bearer" not only because of its scope, but because Sen. Davis has been very vocal in her support for anti-bullying legislation.)

The Senate has adjourned until Monday, so we will not know the committee chairs or members until then.

Meanwhile in the House the rules debate is on-going. Earlier it had seemed likely that we would see rules adoption this week, but the capitol scuttlebutt is that it is more likely to come on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Wendy Davis Gets Anti-Bullying Legislation Right

SB 245 by Wendy Davis is the most comprehensive, thoughtful, piece of anti-bullying legislation filed this session. The bill is almost identical to HB 224 filed by Mark Strama in the House last month, but corrects one very important omission present in that bill.

Both bills offer a fairly comprehensive approach to fighting bullying. They 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. They also would allow school administrators to transfer bullies to a different class or campus than their victims if the victim's parents or guardians request it (under current law only the victim may be transferred) and create a uniform definition of bullying in the education code, adding cyberbullying.

Both bills 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, and include a requirement that schools report statistics on bullying to the state. It's in the specifics of the reporting requirement that the bills differ.

The House bill requires school districts to report if the cause of the bullying was based on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or disability. The Senate bill has the same requirement, but includes Gender Identity and Expression in it's enumerated list.

Beyond adding a provision that will help transgender kids, the Senate bill is far more useful to Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (and for that matter, Straight) students than the House version. More often than not, when kids are bullied for being queer it's not because of who they are attracted to, but because they are not conforming to other students expectations of how men and women are supposed to behave.

Davis served last session on the Senate Education Committee and is likely to do so again this session. Having a voice on the committee will help her in her efforts to pass this bill.

It's exciting to see this bill in the State Senate. The Texas Senate has historically been reticent to tackle the issue of bullying. Last session only two bills were filed on the topic, neither of which got a hearing (SB 29 (81R) by Zaffirini and SB 1725 (81R) by West) neither of which was as comprehensive as this bill.

It is generally harder to pass a bill in the Senate than in the House. Senate rules require that bills be considered in the order they are filed. Each session a "blocker bill" is filed early on. By general agreement this bill sits at the front of the line and no action is taken on it. It requires 2/3 of the Senate to set aside the rules and consider a bill out of order. With the blocker bill at the front of the line holding everything else up this means that, effectively, a Senator must get 2/3 of her colleagues to agree that voting on a bill is a good idea in order for it to pass.

Since passage in the Senate is a larger hurdle, having a bill that is this strong start on the Senate side gives me hope that we may actually see some real action taken by the legislature this session to fight bullying.

-----------
UPDATE: WFAA in Dallas has a short interview with Davis saying the bill was inspired by Fort Worth City Council Member Joel Burns famous "It Get's Better" speech. Burns was elected to fill the seat Davis held before running for for State Senate.

Thanks to Dallas Voice's Instant Tea Blog for pointing this out.

------------------
UPDATE (03/01/11): Davis has substituted the language on her bill SB 242 to make it a companion of Rep. Strama's HB 224 - the language of the two bills is now identical

SB 205 - Require Schools to Create Anti-Bullying Policies

SB 205 by Sen. John Whitmire would require all public schools in Texas to adopt a comprehensive anti-bullying policy. The bill is exhaustive in the detail it prescribes for the policy, but does allow each school district to tailor its policy to the specifics of its students.

The bill lays out 13 things that each district's policy must address, the policy must:

• prohibit bullying, cyberbullying, harassment, and intimidation
• describe the behavior expected from students
• lay out the consequences of bullying - specifically allowing counseling or referral to anti-bullying services
• include a procedure for reporting bullying, including anonymous reporting
• encourage students and employees to report bullying
• layout a procedure for investigating bullying
• describe how a school district will respond to confirmed bullying
• prohibit retaliation against people who report bullying
• have a rule against intimation of witnesses and victims of bullying to prevent reporting
• describe how a school district will respond to retaliation for reporting or intimation of witnesses or victims
• specify how the policy will be publicized
• specify that publicization of the policy must state that it applies both on campus and at off campus school sponsored events
• identify which school officials are responsible for implementing the policy

I like this bill. However, it doesn't go nearly as far as SB 245 by Davis (which also requires schools to adopt anti-bullying policies). Davis' bill includes a host of other anti-bullying solutions, like a reporting requirement and permitting schools to transfer bullies to other classes or campuses (currently only the victim can be transferred), but the level of detail in Whitmire's policy requirement will make it difficult for recalcitrant districts to wiggle out of the requirement.

The best solution would be for Whitmire's policy requirement to be amended onto Davis' bill. Most of the time each half of the legislature (House and Senate) only sends one bill on a topic to the other for consideration. Since these two bills were introduced in the Senate it would be best if they were combined in the Senate. Senators Davis and Whitmire will need to work together to create the best synthesis of the two.