Texas Tribune: In Texas, Making Presidential Ballot Won't Be Hard.
The Texas GOP's State Republican Executive Committee has decided that candidates have to pony up just $5,000 — or produce 300 signatures from registered voters in each of 15 of Texas' 36 congressional districts — to qualify.
That means Texas should be a hotly contested March 1 primary for GOP candidates who survive February's early state primary and caucus contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — that is, if the candidate or his or her aligned super PAC can afford the sky-high TV advertising rates needed to play in giant Texas.
Texas Tribune: Nationalist Group Wants TX Secession on Primary Ballot.
Texas already seceded once — in 1861, by popular vote in a statewide election. But the Texas Nationalist Movement wants a repeat a century and a half later, and thinks the March GOP primary is the place to start.
The Nederland-based Texas independence group is circulating a petition aimed at getting a non-binding vote onto the GOP primary ballot over whether "the state of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation."
Their goal? 75,000 signatures from registered voters by Dec. 1 — more than the 66,894 the Texas Secretary of State's office says the group needs to get the language on the ballot.
The Corpus Christi Caller: Comptroller estimates close despite weak oil.
Despite volatility in oil prices, Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar's predictions for the amount of money the state government will have in 2017 appear to be holding close to reality.
Hegar's forecast was issued in January, just before the 84th legislative session. The comptroller's revenue forecast is used by lawmakers to set the state budget for two years.
Last week, with the end of the fiscal year, all the budget funds' revenue was only 0.2 percent less than expected, finishing the year at $109.5 billion instead of $109.7 billion, according to a release.
My Statesman: Court should level the playing field for charter schools.
We agree with the overall conclusion of the recent editorial about the school finance litigation before the state Supreme Court. But we take issue with the specifics regarding public charter schools and facilities funding. The inclusion of charters in the legal discourse is historic, as no previous suit on this thorny issue has contemplated the constitutionality of public charter school funding. Public charter schools didn’t exist when the early suits were filed claiming Texas under funds its schools.
The Texas Constitution makes it clear the state legislature must establish and provide for an “efficient system of public free schools.” Today, and for the past 20 years, that system includes both traditional and public charter schools. Although the paper contends — as the lower court ruled — that charters are somehow an exclusive creation of the legislature, the fact is both types of public schools are subject to state oversight and funding.
An average college student in Texas lacking funds needs a quick haircut. Fortunately for him, a friend offers to cut his hair for $5, a fraction of the cost of a barber. The student accepts his friend’s offer and all was well, except one thing: By this transaction, his friend was in violation of state law since he did not possess a barber’s license in the state of Texas.
Occupational licenses may not seem like a hot topic, but with 29 percent of all jobs in the United States now requiring some form of license, the time has come to take a long and hard look at the heavy costs of these licenses on the economy and Texans.
Supporters of occupational licensing claim that they are necessary to safeguard the quality of licensed services, hold practitioners to safety standards, and prevent unethical and dangerous practices. The evidence, however, paints a different picture; licensing laws act more as a form of protectionism for those in licensed professions while blocking access to jobs, stifling job creation, and hindering technological development and access to information. Similarly, increasing technology and market advances are making governmental regulation of occupations increasingly obsolete.
My Statesman: Hays County asks if gun-ban policy is legal.
Hays County officials have asked Attorney General Ken Paxton to determine whether a new state law upends the county’s policy of denying weapons in a county building that includes courtrooms, prosecutors’ offices and the grand jury room.
State law has long prohibited the public from carrying weapons onto “the premises” of courtrooms or offices used by court officials.
But Senate Bill 273, which went into effect Sept. 1, also created stiff financial penalties for governments that improperly ban guns from areas where it is legal for those with a handgun license to carry a weapon. Fines for a first offense range from $1,000 to $1,500, with subsequent offenses topping out at $10,500.
The problem, Hays County Criminal District Attorney Wes Mau told Paxton, is that the three-story Hays County Government Center in San Marcos includes court-related offices where guns are banned as well as places where guns would typically be allowed, such as the tax assessor-collector’s office and the elections office.
