The Texas legislature is underway. That happens late January
through early June every odd-numbered year. So there an intense couple of
months during which everybody is trying to get attention for their issues. The
only required legislation is the budget (balanced budget is required).
Everything else is extra—sometimes good, sometimes bad.
This past Saturday our District 7 State Senator Paul
Bettencourt held a luncheon with precinct chairs and other interested
conservatives, to talk about several issues and encourage support. Over 100
people attended.
Sen. Paul Bettencourt speaking to the crowd on Saturday |
Then, Monday night was the quarterly Harris County
Republican Party Executive Committee Meeting, which is made up of precinct
chairs and other officials. When we do new business at these meetings, that can
include resolutions, which basically are statements we vote on. They are not
law, and are nonbinding, but can have some clout with the legislature since we’re
a big conservative body. I didn’t get the official count, but somewhere around
200 people had a vote, while an additional 50 or so looked on.
At the Saturday meeting Paul Bettencourt talked about lowering
property tax increases. The idea is to cap annual increases at 4% (down from
8%). This is in response to the average home’s taxable value being increased
36.4% between 2013 and 2016, even as the oil industry has been in a downturn.
This is SB 2 in Texas. The low number indicates high
priority interest among Senate bills. It is now in the Finance Committee,
waiting for consideration. Interested citizens can contact their state senator
as well as members of the finance committee to express their opinions.
Paul Simpson chairs the HCRP Executive Committee Meeting on Monday |
An issue that came up at both meetings is school choice. There’s
a bill containing two good ideas: Education Savings Accounts and Tax Credit
Scholarships [SB 3, which is a priority for Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick].
Another bill suggests ESAs for special education students only, which is how it
was handled in Arizona [HB 1335]; I would prefer this be open to any student.
And there are companion bills for Tax Credit Scholarships [HB 1184 authored by
Dwayne Bohac, my representative, and SB 542 authored by Senator Bettencourt].
I’ve been writing about ESAs since last spring when I
learned about the idea. The tax
credit scholarship idea is new to me, but it fits what I’ve had it in my mind
for a long time. Businesses can receive a tax credit for donating to a
scholarship fund. Students in either public or private schools can access an
allotted amount for these scholarships. No money comes out of the state’s
education budget. It is a free-market solution. I envision a day when we are
post-public-school-monopoly, and this is the type of solutions that allows us
to see that every child still gets an education.
HB 1184 came up as a resolution at the HCRP meeting, and
there was a lot of disagreement. The procedure for debate is: the resolution is
presented, the presenter gets 1 minute in support, then a person in opposition
gets 1 minute, going back and forth until either no one else wants to speak in
favor or opposition, or there have been 3 speakers for each side.
Unless you’re in the world of alternative education, you
might think just the way you’ve been trained to: public school is the way we care about the education of
the next generation, and care about the teachers who teach them. Anything
outside that paradigm faces resistance. But among conservatives as a whole, we
generally prefer free market to government solutions. And we prefer individual
choice and accountability to government mandate. So the fact that there is
disagreement shows there is some education of conservative activists that needs
to happen if we’re going to get school choice ideas mainstreamed.
One of the arguments was that we should be against anything
that takes money away from public schools—but this legislation takes zero
dollars from that budget.
Another argument came from a homeschool mom I respect. She
resists anything that could be skewed in any way to allow the state to regulate
homeschooling. I am with her on the concern—but not about this opportunity. Tim
Lambert of Texas Home School Coalition is reading every word of legislation to
make sure we can support it, and feel assured it can’t do damage to homeschool
freedom.
In addition, there’s a proposed constitutional amendment
[HJR 62] to protect private and home schools from state and local regulation.
This is already the law in Texas, but there’s so much public school mindset
that well-meaning people say things like, “Well, they should have
accountability” and “Someone should be making sure they’re actually teaching,
for the sake of the children.” If you know better, you know that is always
interpreted as government interfering the parents’ decision about the care and
upbringing of their children, overruling the parent, and using governmental
power to coerce certain things to be taught, regardless of the parents’ better
wisdom about their own child.
When it came to the vote on this resolution, it was close.
The chairman called it in favor of the proponents, but a standing vote was
called for. That also looked somewhat close, but the chairman again called it
in favor. A roll call vote was requested, but the body refused.
After this kind of disagreement, even among those you’re
sitting next to, everybody just moves on. It’s an interesting phenomenon.
Another issue of disagreement Monday night was a resolution
to eliminate multilingual ballots. I wasn’t in favor of the resolution,
although I understand where this is coming from. I am in favor of making
English the official language of the United States, and I’m in favor of making
it the official language of the state I live in—and any other state where the
people choose that. We have official state trees, birds, and flowers. Of course
we should have an official language. If you don’t speak that language, you’re
at a disadvantage in our society.
But that doesn’t mean we outlaw every other language, or act
like we’re too good to tolerate anyone who doesn’t speak our language. We’re a
country of immigrants. My grandfather arrived here in 1906, unable to speak
English. Of course, he learned the language, and became a citizen.
Learning the language is a requirement for citizenship. That
is why there’s some resentment about a law that forces us to spend money to
provide ballots in multiple languages. There seems to be an assumption, as
well, that if a person can’t speak English, then how can they legally be a
voting citizen?
They have a legitimate question. But, if someone is a
citizen and not in prison, they have a right to vote.
Learning a language is a challenging thing. I’ve learned two
foreign languages. I’ve gotten good in at least one of those to study the
materials for citizenship in that language (hypothetical, since you study in
English here). I have opportunities to speak in these languages usually a
couple of times a week. But I’m not fluent enough to read and fully understand the
wording such as we see in ballot propositions—which are sometimes oddly worded
and cause confusion.
As a good citizen, I study the issues before going to the
polls. Arguably, a person who speaks English only marginally could study ahead
of time, and prepare. Look up words. Maybe even read a translation ahead of
time. But you have to admit that a great many English-speaking Americans don’t
do that level of preparation before going to the polls. We let them vote
anyway.
So, while I don’t think the law should require us to provide ballots in multiple languages, it is a courtesy
I think is good to do. I qualified this past election to be a bilingual
election clerk. My polling place was expected to have bilingual clerks for
Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese; a precinct with 50+ surnames related to those
ethnicities is expected to offer these services if we can. Those who need
language help can also bring in their own helper, who is sworn in with an oath
not to influence the voter. We usually get 2-3 Spanish speakers and maybe one
of each of the others on a busy election day. Those who speak other languages
must provide their own helper, and they won’t get the ballot in their language.
They know that ahead of time. Since they’re in an English-speaking nation, this
shouldn’t surprise them.
But since we use e-Slate machines, rather than paper
ballots, there’s very little printing costs—only the estimated amount for those
who request a paper ballot. So, as a courtesy, it doesn’t seem too big a burden
to provide a ballot in these three common languages.
There was debate on both sides at the meeting. An argument
against is that it makes us look bigoted to have this resolution go through,
where media will its spin without allowing the full context of the arguments.
Proponents won handily.
And then we went on to the next issue.
I’m surprised at how much disagreement there is, sometimes
passionate, all in one party where conservatism is the rule. But the example of
civil discourse, and moving on while remaining friendly with your differing
neighbors, is something I’m glad to experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment