Texas Legislature Roundup



Texas State Capitol in Austin

The 84th Texas Legislature adjourned the end of May. So it’s time to look at what happened, and what didn’t happen.

In our local Tea Party, I have the assignment of making a list of bills for us to follow. We take our list to all of the legislators who represent people in our group, which is about two visits a month for four months. We visit their local offices while they’re in Austin, although we did get a couple of visits with the legislators themselves, and some also visited us at our Tea Party meetings.

The Texas Legislature meets every other year, from mid-January to the end of May. So a lot of business gets compressed into these few months.

Our list was longer this year than in the past, with more people contributing bills they were interested in. So, while it was a bit more work to keep track, the interest is good. It means we’re awake, and we’re hopeful that our speaking up will have an effect.

Texas is a very “red” state, with GOP majorities in the House and the Senate. So you’d think it would be a breeze to get the right kind of legislation through. But that’s not totally true. There are thousands of bills filed during the session, sometimes several on the same issue, so finding the bill that will catch attention and move is a challenge. Also, the Democrat minority is still active in committees, and they have some influence over the House Speaker, who influences what moves.

This report today isn’t what the news thinks is most important. It’s my personal list plus the list of interests of other locals who spoke up. But I think it might be interesting to see what caught the attention of our little corner of conservatism.

First, here’s the list of principles our Tea Party has adopted, which we shared with our legislators:

Principles of Cypress Texas Tea Party 

·         We support the US Constitution and conservative principles in the Texas Constitution.

·         We support low taxes and limited government spending and oppose ever having a state income tax.

·         We support handling each issue at the most local authority possible—with individual and family decisions as the default authority.

·         We support asserting 10^th Amendment states’ rights against usurpation by federal government.

o   We particularly oppose allowing national health care to be imposed on the people of Texas.

·         We support parental rights in the education and upbringing of their children, including local control over spending and curriculum in public schools.

·         We do not as a group endorse candidates, but we provide a platform for sharing information so our members can make informed decisions; individual members may endorse, work for, or become candidates. 

Now, instead of repeating the whole bill list here, I’ll mainly identify categories and issues. 

Immigration Law and Homeland Security

We were in favor of e-verify, a method for employers to verify eligibility of employees. If you’re going to hold employers accountable for hiring illegals, you have to give them a way to meet the law. Several bills were put forward. SB 374 passed.

We were against sanctuary cities; the bill we followed, SB 185, disallowed cities from proclaiming they would refuse to obey the law. The bill was approved in committee but died in Intent Calendar.

There are several calendars, and I’m not sure we ever fully understood them all. There’s Intent Calendar, Calendars (not specified), General State Calendar, and Constitutional Amendment Calendar. That last one was for joint resolutions that would be sent to the Secretary of State to be put on the November ballot, to be voted on in a general election. The others were about scheduling votes for passage of bills in the House and Senate at different stages. Calendars, generally, is where bills go to die. If they don’t get a scheduled vote, that’s the end. We probably need to pay more attention to who is on the various Calendars committees, and pressure them with phonecalls and emails. There’s always more to do.

In the last couple of months we became aware of some bills related to infrastructure safety—particularly the electronic grid—both from terrorism and natural disaster causes of an EMP. (I wrote about this here.) Protection would be relatively inexpensive and extremely valuable insurance. We appreciate that loca State Senator Lois Kolkhorst was a co-author, but the bill didn’t progress this session. You might be interested in the testimony by Frank Gaffney, for future reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmgoSHCh77U&sns=em  

State and Citizen Rights Preservation

We followed several bills that were intended to assert our Tenth Amendment state’s rights. A couple of them simply asserted the Tenth Amendment. One was specific to declare through state constitutional amendment that Texans would not be subject to a federal requirement to purchase Obamacare. None of these bills progressed. That in no way means Texas won’t assert its Tenth Amendment rights. There are lawsuits underway, and there are other various approaches.

We became aware, about halfway through the session, of several attempts to impose “climate change” rules on Texas. We were against the junk science approach to limiting Texas’s economy. Fortunately, none of these bills progressed.

We followed some tax lowering bills, aimed at the homestead exemption and taxes on inventory located in the state prior to shipping. But they didn’t progress. We also followed some bills that could have raised taxes, including increasing gasoline tax while that industry is depressed, which we were against. Fortunately those failed. 

Article V Convention

The Article V Convention comes under states’ rights, but probably deserves its own subheading. I was not an expert on this issue, but we had a member among our legislator visitors who was, and he was quite persuasive. I still need to read Mark Levin’s book The Liberty Amendments to bring myself up to speed; I can’t yet explain the issue adequately. But the general idea is for enough of the states to propose a US constitutional amendment change, and then the US Congress would have to take up that issue. If the amendment passed, then it would be sent on to the states for ratification—a long and challenging process. Article V refers to that portion of the US Constitution that describes this possible remedy.

Two of the bills, HJR (House Joint Resolution) 77 and HJR 79 both were approved in the House and then died in the State Affairs Committee of the Senate. HJR 77, which was authored by a couple of our local representatives, Fletcher and Bohac, looked like it had possibilities, with a public hearing May 25, but it was left pending in committee, and then time ran out. 

Second Amendment

There were two issues we favored related to carrying firearms. One was open carry—which means that a person who is at least 21 and has a concealed carry permit is allowed to carry openly (not hidden). This puts us in the company of the majority of the states, and takes us out of the company of a half dozen anti-gun states the likes of California and New York. The bill passed.

Friends from out of state told me the news had characterized the debate as trying to make Texas allow open carry for anyone, regardless of mental state or criminality, like the Wild West—which people kind of think Texas is anyway. But, seriously, we’re not crazy. We’re just in favor of allowing the good guys to defend ourselves.

The other issue was campus carry—allowing concealed carry licensees to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. This passed, but with amendments. I think it was watered down so that each campus school board gets to decide. It sounds like a decent compromise, but it actually nearly nullifies the law. I can understand the argument against arming live-on-campus freshmen who drink too much or get depressed their first time away from home. But you have to be 21 to get a concealed carry license. On campuses like our local Lone Star Community College system, average age is 24+, and no one lives on campus. Nevertheless, only one or two board members are willing to allow these adults, coming from their jobs to classes on campus, to defend themselves and others—even though we have had incidents in which attackers had to be taken out by brave fellow students, because it took too long for security to arrive. So, this was a win that’s not quite a win. 

Marriage and Religion Protection

These issues are combined now, because everywhere marriage isn’t protected, religious freedom is lost. One bill would refuse to allow local judges to grant same-sex marriage licenses (or any license not allowed in the Texas Constitutional definition of marriage). Other states are trying this as well. It’s an assertion of the Tenth Amendment, which can be done regardless of this bill. But it was a declaration of Texas’s intent prior to a decision by the Supreme Court that could try to usurp Texas’s sovereignty. The bill didn’t move. Another reiterated that Texas would retain its state constitutional definition of marriage; this one got a public hearing and was approved in committee, but died in Calendars.

Another bill declared that Texas could only apply Texas law, and no foreign law. This was in reference to attempts to apply sharia law, particularly in reference to family/divorce law. This should be a given without the bill, but it has been an issue, even in Texas. What we really need is judges who apply the actual law. Again, the bill got a public hearing, was approved in committee, and died in Calendars. 

Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife

I’m no expert in this, but we had a member who brought these to our attention. One bill, SJR 22, to protect the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, was approved and will appear on the November ballot. Another bill, HB 158, meant to use taxes imposed on the sale, storage, or use of sporting goods for parks and wildlife, passed as well. So that was good. 

Education/Parental Rights

We had a little success in parental rights. There was an HHS bill, meant to clean up and make more efficient in necessary ways, that had a provision that would allow state agencies to remove a child from home without imminent danger. We were against that. Fortunately, when that provision was brought to the attention of the committee, a substitute bill without that wording was put forward, and that passed. Other bills attempted to give the state agencies that power, but fortunately they didn’t progress.

Yet again there was an attempt to restore parental rights. The situation is that grandparents can sue for rights, and sometimes judges grant them access or custody, taking children from fit parents. The issues that bring on these suits are often related to the religion or education choices of the parents. These cases are always overturned at the Texas Supreme Court level, but getting there can cost millions, and some families lose control of their children when they are impoverished by the repeated lawsuits. This should be corrected and prevented in the law; fit parents should have the right to decide on the care and upbringing of their children.

Currently homeschool and private school students (with a single exception) are prevented from participating in UIL competitions—even though UIL was created at a time when nearly all students in the state were homeschooled or privately schooled. This needs to be corrected. The last two sessions this was referred to as the Tim Tebow Bill, because the professional football player had been homeschooled. Again this session the bill progressed. SB 2046 passed the Senate, but languished in the Public Education Committee in the House.

There was a success with SB 1543, which higher education discrimination against homeschoolers and non-traditional students. The bill passed.  

Voter Integrity

We watched a number of bills that could have allowed for greater voter fraud, including online registration, same-day registration, getting felons to vote, trying to dilute Voter ID, and trying to remove judges from party voting (so even less would be known about judge candidates). All failed to move.

There were others we were happy to see pass. HB 621 allowed for dismissal of a volunteer voter registrar that failed to follow the law. This is to prevent the Turn Texas Blue arm of ACORN from doing their fraud here. SB 795 creates a mechanism for interstate voter registration crosschecking, which is a common sense approach to preventing voting in multiple places.

Border Lines

Earlier this month I got a call from an organization with “conservative” in their name, asking me my opinions on the border and the legislation being considered. It was not a money-raising call. And it wasn’t a poll. What they do is help people draft letters, possibly in ways they agree with; I don’t know. It’s a rather time/work-intensive approach.

So they took notes on what I said and then drafted a letter from that, from me. They sent me three copies of it: one for my representative, one for me, and one for them—after I had made any edits or changes. I’m not exactly in need of help in drafting a letter to my representative. But I was curious about how they would attempt to draft my opinions. I got that just a few days ago, kind of late in the process. And in the meantime, I’ve learned more and my positions are not the same. I should say I have not changed my opinion against amnesty, for border security, and for a less disastrously bureaucratic mess for people to get through to try to come legally. But I was willing to see what the bill was about, and now I know enough.

So, I’m redrafting the letter, here, as an exercise. And I may also send it (probably by email at this late date) to my representative. And if I get my printer working, I may also send the re-draft to this organization. [Note: while I was writing this, the organization called to follow up. I told them their letter had fairly well represented my stated opinions the day we talked, but my opinions on the bill have changed enough that I am redrafting the letter. They offered to write a new draft for me, but I don’t think there is time for them to get a new draft to me before my representative needs to see my opinion. So I’m not sure they will actually write me a new draft. I’m still uncertain whether their purpose was to support the bill, or whether their purpose was just to help citizens send their opinions to their representatives. I am allowing them to send me a newsletter, so I can eventually learn if they’re truly conservative.]

If you find parts of this letter useful, feel free to adapt it to send to your representative.

______________________________________

Dear Representative Poe,

I’m writing today concerning the immigration reform bill. I recognize that the immigration system needs reform; I was cautiously optimistic for a while that this bill might be a useful effort. I no longer believe that. As a sovereign nation, we must be able to control our borders. There are current laws requiring a solid wall to be built on our southern border—since 2006. Only a few dozen miles have been built so far.

This bill, in any version, seems to say, “OK, we’ll consider doing something about the border—if you give in on every other comprehensive reform we ask.” There’s a “trust us” implication; but there’s no reason to trust when the federal government has already proven that a law requiring border enforcement will be ignored.

Of course there are other immigration issues we would like to have dealt with. We should streamline the process to encourage legal immigration. I have known people who have gone through the very difficult process of being married to a foreign national that had trouble getting permanent legal status; two families I know were separated for as long as 18 months.

And then there are families like the Romeikes, a German family that sought asylum here in 2008 because they wanted to homeschool their children, which is illegal in Germany. They were given permanent asylum by a judge in 2010, and then out of the blue the Justice Department decided to overturn that ruling and deport them, which will mean a huge fine for the Romeikes, and possibly prison terms for the parents and loss of custody of their children. Our President says it’s the right of Germany to do that to this family. Yet this same President instructs his DOJ to allow illegals to live here without repercussions, and sues the state of Arizona simply for asking about legality when someone is in custody for some other reason. Our current government either cannot tell or chooses wrongly who should be allowed to come here.

We should have the ability for employers to verify the legality of employees (e-verify is probably a good idea). And at some point we may need to deal with the illegals who remain here, who drain our resources for education, healthcare, welfare, and law enforcement. But this bill doesn’t effectively deal with any of these issues. It seems to have as a singular purpose legalizing those who came here illegally, with no improvement to the overall system.

What we must do is secure the border. Until there is a will to do that in both houses of the legislature—as well as proven enforcement—nothing else can be improved.

I suggest, rather than yet another unreadable 1100-page bill, a bill with just a few words:

Inasmuch as laws are on the books requiring border security and legal immigration, those laws should be enforced. At such time as enforcement is verified, then additional legislation can be considered concerning other immigration system issues.

I am no longer naïve enough to believe that any other approach will lead to the essential beginning point we need. Please vote against any and all versions of the current immigration legislation.

Thank you for your efforts.

Executive Disorder

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what an executive order is. In short, it is an order by an executive to carry out (that is, execute) the duties of that role. It doesn’t sound that difficult to understand.

In the federal government, with powers carefully separated, an executive doesn’t make law, but carries out the laws set forth by acts of the legislative branch. So this week when President Obama made an executive order to offer some sort of legal status to grown children of illegal aliens, that wasn’t accurately an executive order at all; that was a law change by fiat—not a power we have granted to the executive branch.

Back in the early days of the country, one of the first orders by the executive, President George Washington, was to place an order for a set of dishes to be used at state diplomatic dinners. Diplomatic relations with foreign dignitaries was a role required of the executive branch, so it seemed reasonable. And when the funding for the order came before the legislature, which had power over the budget, Congress granted funding for the request.

Over the decades, executive orders were mostly policy statements to the various specific departments directed by the executive. These aren’t laws. They aren’t even regulations. They are policies and procedures that are intended to meet the objectives of the law.

But over the decades, particularly recent decades, Presidents have pushed the boundaries. Back in President Truman’s day, the Supreme Court pushed back. Truman tried to put all steel mills in the US under federal control. The Court saw that as making law and disallowed it. Which put future presidents on warning, and since then they have mostly cited the law they are supporting when making executive orders.

Executive orders have been used to fight wars without the formal declaration of war, but in those instances Congress has followed up with authorization. It was seen mainly as a timing issue of immediate military needs.

Problems began to mount in the last few decades when the executive branch granted power to regulatory agencies, with intrusive legal authority that never passed through Congress. One of the “causes” of executive order overuse has been contradictory laws and regulations. The US legal code is pretty convoluted—even incomprehensible to the non-legally trained public. And that leaves a lot up to interpretation. Executive orders have been used to direct policy during a particular administration, in a way saying, “While I’m in office, we’re going to interpret the law this way.” Or maybe just saying, “We’re going to focus enforcement here with limited time and resources.”

Rather than the executive branch interpreting and then picking enforcement priorities, a better solution would be to insist on clarity in the code, but we’re not likely to get that in the short run. Real arguments come when the president’s policy simply disagrees with the law, so he uses executive orders to circumvent the law or simply ignore it.

An example would be Obama’s ending the Mexico City Policy, thus authorizing taxpayer funds to be used for grants to international groups providing abortion services. That was done his first week in office. A couple of months later he removed restrictions on taxpayer funding for  embryonic stem cell research (research that, by the way, continues to produce zero successes, while non-embryonic stem-cell research continues to make headway; it’s about wanting to sacrifice embryos more than it is about advancing science.)

In the current administration “executive orders” are simply a maneuver to exert power when Congress hasn’t seen fit to grant it. There’s even a catchy name for this “program”: “We Can’t Wait.” It combines executive orders, regulatory rulemaking, and recess appointments to avoid needing Congressional approval before doing whatever Obama wants to do. Note that all the czars appointed by the president are extra-constitutional, so none of the regulations put forth by any agency headed by a czar should be given authoritative weigt. And pretending that Congress is in recess during a weekend shows “he won’t wait,” but it hardly illustrates Congress as the roadblock he claims.

Shutting down an executive order, at least in this day and age, is difficult. Congress can overrule, but requires a supermajority. Even cutting off funding is more difficult than it ought to be. And a Supreme Court ruling requires a lawsuit by someone who can show damage from the action, and time for the issue to work its way up to the Supreme Court.

So Obama orders at will, with a “what are you going to do about it?” arrogance. The quickest, simplest approach is to vote the president out of office, and toss out all his executive orders along with him.

Which means, executive orders are arbitrary and temporary—bad things when you’re dealing with a society that functions by the rule of law. As Thomas Sowell explains this week, anyone who comes forward and claims their parents are illegal aliens risks making that known when the Obama rule could disappear within the year. And who is going to hire a newly identified suddenly legal alien, putting in the training and investment needed for a new employee, if there’s a risk the next year of being charged with hiring illegals?

If the change had been through congressional debate, those questions might have been answered. The arbitrariness would have been eliminated before a rule became law. There are reasons to wait for Congress. In general, the less Congress does, the better off we are.

But Obama “can’t wait,” or maybe can’t be bothered with details like the Constitution. He prefers being an autocrat. This executive does a lot of ordering, but what he creates is disorder.