From the Texas Tribune: Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act, Court Rules

We discussed this in a lecture class today. Nice to see it in the news.

- Click here for the article.

Texas’ voter identification law violates the U.S. law prohibiting racial discrimination in elections, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed previous rulings that the 2011 voter ID law — which stipulates the types of photo identification election officials can and cannot accept at the polls — does not comply with the Voting Rights Act.

The full court's ruling delivered the strongest blow yet to what is widely viewed as the nation’s strictest voter ID law. Under the law, most citizens (some, like people with disabilities, can be exempt) must show one of a handful of types of identification before their ballots can be counted: a state driver's license or ID card, a concealed handgun license, a U.S. passport, a military ID card, or a U.S citizenship certificate with a photo.

Texas’ losing streak continued in its efforts to defend its law, fighting challenges from the U.S. Department of Justice, minority groups and voting rights advocates.

- Click here for the decision.

For more:

Courthouse News Service: Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Controversial Texas Voter ID Law.
Ballotpedia: Voter identification laws by state.
NCSL: VOTER IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS | VOTER ID LAWS.
Frontline: Why Voter ID Laws Aren't Really about Fraud.

From the Texas Tribune: Texas Case Could Define Extent of Abortion Limits

For out look in 2306 at the relationship between the state of Texas and the national government - federalism they call it.

- Click here for the article.

Before Wendy Davis took to the floor of the Texas Senate for an 11-hour filibuster that ultimately failed to stop sweeping new restrictions on abortion, there was Casey.

Shorthand for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case reaffirmed a woman’s right to an abortion but gave states more power to restrict the procedure to “further the health or safety of a woman." The 5-4 ruling, however, also said states can't enact “unnecessary” regulations that have the “purpose or effect” of imposing an undue burden on those seeking the procedure.

On Wednesday, the court is expected to revisit the standards set by Casey — and potentially redefine the next era of abortion restrictions in the United States — when it takes up a legal challenge to Texas’ 2013 abortion restrictions, collectively known as House Bill 2. The Texas case, formally known as Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, will allow the court to address disagreements among lower courts over what constitutes an undue burden and clarify how far states can go in restricting abortion.

It's the next step of a legal journey that began in Texas when lawmakers passed HB 2 almost three years ago. The law requires abortion clinics begin to meet the same standards as hospital-like ambulatory surgical centers, which range from minimum sizes for rooms and doorways to the number of nurses required to be on staff. A separate provision requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of an abortion clinic.

Only 19 Texas clinics remain of the more than 40 that were open before HB 2 passed, and the restrictions are blamed. If the Supreme Court upholds the abortion law in its entirety that number could fall to less than 10, all in major metropolitan areas.

“There will be a right in name as long as Roe is still on the books, but if there are no clinics, then what does that really mean in terms of the right to abortion if you can’t exercise the right?” asked Cary C. Franklin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “This case really puts that question front and center.”

From the Austin American Statesman: Travis County Public Integrity Unit still reels from Perry’s budget cut

This was, of course, the subject of the court case below. Who now investigates Texas government?


- Click here for the article.

On the sidelines of the dismissed criminal case against former Gov. Rick Perry stands the Travis County district attorney’s Public Integrity Unit, which has lost staff and struggled to remain afloat after a political firestorm over the past three years stripped it of much of its budget. The unit, its officials say, has had to start turning away cases and no longer has the resources to provide counties with the investigative support it once did.

“We are a shell of our former selves,” said Gregg Cox, the Travis County prosecutor who oversees the Public Integrity Unit. “We might be able to prosecute certain cases more effectively. We probably have more experience and a better track record of handling those cases, but we are still having to tell those agencies, ‘Sorry, take it to county X, we just can’t do it.’”

The Public Integrity Unit’s troubles began during the 2013 legislative session, when Perry threatened to veto its funding in an attempt to force District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg from office after her arrest and conviction for driving while intoxicated. When Lehmberg declined, Perry cut all of the division’s $7.5 million from the state budget, trimming the staff from 35 to 17 employees.

Perry was indicted a year later, and the Public Integrity Unit remained front and center in a clash between lawmakers, some of whom saw its duties as essential and others who believed its prosecutions were partisan and politically motivated.

The division, created by the district attorney’s office in 1978, mostly handles fraud against state programs, insurance fraud and tax fraud. But it has grabbed the most headlines for its investigations into the ethics abuses of officials at the highest levels of government, less than 5 percent of its caseload.

The state budget didn’t restore any of the vetoed money the unit lost for 2016-17, and the 2016 county budget allocated $363,000 of about $1.4 million requested to keep the unit intact, forcing officials to cut an additional seven jobs for the fiscal year beginning Oct 1.

Cox said that to deal with the losses, officials have had to dissolve and reorganize the unit, which now falls under the Travis County Special Prosecution Division. The latest cuts include two investigators and a forensic accountant. The Public Integrity Unit has to share the three remaining investigators and support staff with the white-collar crime unit, which handles financial crimes with losses of at least $50,000.

Cox, director of the special prosecution division, said the Public Integrity Unit has been further hurt by at least four prosecutors and investigators who have left voluntarily amid the funding battles. With no receptionists or support staff, the office on the second floor of the Granger Building in downtown Austin now seems abandoned.

The unit could once provide forensic financial analysis and contract expertise to counties that didn’t have such resources, its officials said, and it could consolidate cases from multiple jurisdictions, making it easier to prosecute agents and corporations stealing from the state. It can now only take those cases that have been almost fully investigated by local law enforcement agencies, the FBI or the Texas Rangers.

Evidence of its financial struggles surfaced last month when Travis County prosecutors said they were no longer leading a criminal investigation into the Austin tech firm 21CT and its controversial technology deal with the state that spurred sweeping contracting reforms. “It gives me heartburn to think we could not prosecute that case,” said Susan Oswalt, chief of the Public Integrity Unit.

In April, it rejected a request from the Department of Public Safety to reopen an investigation into controversial border security contracts, telling DPS Director Steve McCraw the unit doesn’t have “sufficient staff or resources to accommodate your request at this time.”

Appeals court dismisses Rick Perry’s criminal case
Timeline: Rick Perry indicted
Rick Perry: From Texas governor to Florida lobbyist

From the Austin American Statesman: Appeals court dismisses Rick Perry’s criminal case

This and an interesting series of events. I'll add links to relevant items later. 2306 students should note that the court refers to the state's separation of powers provision - we read through Article 2 of the Texas Constitution in class today - it didn't take long.

- Click here for the article

The state’s top criminal court on Wednesday threw out the remaining criminal charge against Rick Perry, sparing the former governor from trial and a potential prison sentence on a felony charge of misusing the power of his office.

The charge, related to Perry’s 2013 threat to veto money for Travis County prosecutors in an attempt to force District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg from office, violated the Texas Constitution’s separation of powers provision by improperly limiting the governor’s veto authority, the Court of Criminal Appeals said in a 6-2 ruling.

“The constitution does not purport to impose any restriction on the veto power based on the reason for the veto, and it does not purport to allow any other substantive limitations to be placed on the use of a veto,” said the opinion by Presiding Judge Sharon Keller.
The state’s highest criminal court ordered the remaining criminal charge against Rick Perry to be dropped Wednesday.

“The governor’s power to exercise a veto may not be circumscribed by the Legislature, by the courts, or by district attorneys,” Keller wrote. “When the only act that is being prosecuted is a veto, then the prosecution itself violates separation of powers.”

The court also spared Perry from a second felony charge of coercion of a public official, ruling that a lower court correctly tossed out the law last summer as unconstitutionally vague and a violation of free speech rights.

Wednesday’s ruling brought an abrupt end to the politically charged legal troubles that have dogged Perry for 18 months, looming over the closing months of his 14 years in office and casting a pall over his second unsuccessful run for president.

Ballotpedia provides info on the court and who is on it.

- Click here for it.

As opposed to the Texas Supreme Court - where 7 out of 9 justices were appointed by Perry, only one of the judges on the CCA was appointed by him. I did not check to see if she recused herself.

Here's the latest version of the Texas Constitution

This includes the amendment approved in the November 4, 2014 election.

- Click here for it.

Several laws passed by the 83rd Legislature took effect September 1st

From ABC13, a list of laws adopted last year which are now in being adopted:

- Click here for the story:

Texas state legislators meet every other year, but some laws passed more than 12 months ago are finally effective today, September 1, 2014.

"These are the more complicated laws," says State Representative Garnet Coleman, a Democrat from Houston. "We're talking about legislation that we pass and then give to the regulatory agencies. They have to figure out the best way to implement the laws and that can take time."

That's certainly the case with House Bill 5, the sweeping legislation changing the course load requirements for graduating high school seniors. Now, there are multiple tracks a student can choose his or her freshman year. The non-binding track guides a student through classes which offer preparation for college or a job in the workforce.

Also effective today is a new law which makes it easier to go through the inspection/registration process for businesses with fleets of vehicles running on natural gas. The streamlined process is intended to encourage businesses to purchase and run the cleaner burning cars and buses.

Juveniles charged with crimes are now getting a fairer shake in the state's legal system. A law effective today provides indigent juveniles with appointed counsel immediately after arrest. Previously, juveniles who couldn't afford attorneys would get much farther into the legal process before being appointed an attorney.

The state's new abortion law, House Bill 2, will not go into effect as intended today. A federal judge ruled against key parts of that law which would have shuttered abortion clinics not meeting certain enhanced medical standards.

From the Texas Tribune: Craft Brewers Seek Further Reforms From Lawmakers

During the 83rd Texas Legislative Session I made it a point to post stories that mentioned changes in laws related to beer and breweries, specifically those that responded to efforts by the craft brewers guild in Texas to expand opportunities for them.

I am a big fan of their products. (Click here for posts related to the 83rd Session)

The Texas Tribune reports that they have unfinished business and are testifying before legislative committees about further changes they would like to see in the 84th Session. Their principle complaint seems to be the current "three tiered" regulatory system which treats producers, distributors and sellers differently. Craft brewers argue that it encumbers a potential expansion of craft brewers.

- Click here for the article:

The 2013 legislative session, which featured the largest overhaul of the beer industry since 1993, was viewed by many observers as a watershed moment for craft brewers in Texas. But in testimony before the House Economic and Small Business Development Committee on Thursday, Scott Metzger, who sits on the board of the Texas Craft Brewers Guild, said the state can still do more for the industry.

At a hearing on how to make Texas more attractive to venture capital investment, Metzger predicted that over next 10 years, the brewing industry could be the most dynamic growth sector of the Texas economy. That potential is limited, he said, because of remaining restrictions on brewers that make it difficult to attract investors.

"The restrictions the state of Texas places on our businesses dictate that it often makes better economic sense to deploy capital in a different state," Metzger, a former economics professor, told lawmakers.

The trade association that represents Texas beer distributors, the Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas, has previously pushed back against changes to the industry that it believes threaten the state's three-tier system, which divides producers, distributors and sellers so that the state can effectively oversee the alcohol industry.

. . . Asserting that New York, Washington, Colorado and even California had more brewer-friendly environments than Texas, Metzger said Thursday that the industry is encumbered locally by "restrictive franchise statutes" and "a regulatory scheme that restricts our ability to sell and market our products and, in one particularly egregious instance, to realize any of the actual value of the brands that we have created."

Did Governor Perry's line item veto of state funding for the Texas Public Integrity Unit violate the law?

A special investigator has been assigned to find out - and it highlights some of the issues associated with the line item veto. The governor withheld

- Click here for background from the Texas Tribune, and here for background from the Austin American-Statesman.

The story is long and convoluted and stems from long standing animosity between the state legislature and the Travis County District Attorney's Office. The office - usually held by a Democrat since it is in Austin - has been the source of recent investigations of activities of the legislature, which for the past ten years has been dominated by Republicans. The source of the tension should be obvious.

- Click here for the Texas Tribune's section on the Public Integrity Unit.
- Click here on the unit's prosecution of Tom Delay, and here for Delay's promise to go after the DA.

Conveniently enough, the current DA was popped for a DUI during the last legislative session and Republicans demanded her resignation. She didn't, and the governor used that as a reason to cut state funding for the unit. This has been attempted before.

But questions have persisted about whether the line item veto was not only politically motivated, but designed to minimize the ability of the unit to investigate corruption, which is illegal.

The Lubbock Avalanche Journal reports that Perry risks indictment, and offers a harsh assessment of his governorship.

- Click here for the article. 

That shaking you felt this morning wasn’t caused by fracking in a field near you, it was the eruption of stories reporting that Governor Rick Perry could face possible indictment for bribery, coercion, and abuse of official capacity.

Texas Tribune’s John Reynolds reported that a special prosecutor is looking into Perry’s attempts to force Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to resign by way of a veto for state funding of the Travis County DA's Public Integrity Unit. His actions prompted a complaint filed on June 14th from watchdog group, Texans for Public Justice.
Special Prosecutor Mike McCrum was on video this morning discussing that he is "deeply troubled and very concerned about certain aspects of what happened here”.

Why would Rick Perry do this? Two reasons: To replace an elected Democrat with a Republican DA (most likely, one of his friends or campaign donors) and to wipe out the state’s public corruption watchdog, the Travis County DA's Public Integrity Unit, which is presently looking at another incident of Perry’s corrupt administration, his involvement with corporate subsidy programs—the real basis for the “Texas Miracle” that he touts in his road shows, laying the groundwork for his 2016 aspirations.

It’s been no secret that Rick Perry operates a private employment agency for his friends and donors. The most recent being Joe Weber’s appointment to TxDOT and Phil Wilson’s move to the Upper Colorado River Authority. It’s Plutocracy in Action, which you may read about at the Houston Press, here.

Perry’s list of legitimate crimes is long, but it’s been completely ignored, even by the press, whose job is to be the ultimate communicator of truth, the people’s watchdog. Perry cultivates a mysterious and fortuitous inattention through his “pay-to-play” appointments and networking of corporate funders. History will judge him harshly. His legacy will be that of the most corrupt Texas Governor in history, since Pa and Ma Ferguson.

From the Texas Tribune: Hearing on Innocence Commission Bill Draws Heated Testimony

This is an old story - from May of last year - but it touches on an issue raised in the section on criminal justice in the state. What to do about the number of convicted felons in the state who have been exonerated of their crimes, along with the suspicion that other people may week be also convicted of crimes they did not commit?

Should an Innocence Commission be established to deal with them?

The story highlights a contentious hearing where the need for a commission was debated:

The brother of an exoneree who died while wrongly imprisoned shouted at a senator and former prosecutor on Tuesday during a committee hearing that turned explosive, saying her attitude was deplorable and she should get a new job before storming out while muttering an expletive.

Cory Session, the brother of Tim Cole, who was posthumously exonerated of rape charges, shouted at state Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Southside Place, after she voiced opposition to a proposal to create a commission that would investigate wrongful convictions in Texas.

Several men who spent time in prison for crimes they did not commit were among those who testified during the Senate Criminal Justice Committee hearing aboutHouse Bill 166, by state Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio, which would create an "innocence commission."

Under the bill, members appointed by the governor would investigate wrongful convictions, identify why they occur and examine appeals filed with the state’s courts for evidence of ethical violations by attorneys and judges.

Session, who works with the Innocence Project of Texas, criticized Huffman, a former prosecutor and criminal court judge, over her opposition to the bill. He accused her of standing in the way of reforms to prevent wrongful convictions.

"The eyes of Texas have been closed on criminal justice reform," said Session. Session also said that Texas Supreme Court Justice Wallace Jefferson and other judges have supported the proposed commission. "The attitude you have is deplorable," he said to Huffman. "I am sickened. ... I am pissed off."

The panel highlighted a study commissioned by the 81st legislature on wrongful convictions.

- Click here for the report, and here for the Texas Indigent Defense Commission.

As with the rest of the United States, the criminal justice system in Texas is commonly accused of not providing adequate opportunities for the poor to defend themselves. Beyond that, there is little consensus that such opportunities are either necessary - or worth funding.

From the Texas Tribune: Craft Brewers Celebrate New Beer Laws

The Texas Legislature made selling craft beer much easier last year:

Marking the passage of sweeping Texas beer industry reform, Uncle Billy’s Brew & Que in Austin on Friday will load a keg onto a distributor’s truck, which, for the first time since Prohibition, will transport the beer to a bar six minutes up the street.

It will be the first transaction in what some predict could become a multibillion-dollar industry over the next decade.
Until January 1 of this year, brewpubs like Uncle Billy’s could only sell their product on site: If you wanted an Uncle Billy’s beer, you had to go to Uncle Billy’s. That changed with the passage of Senate Bills 515, 516, 517, 518 and 639 last year, the largest overhaul of the beer industry since the Legislature legalized brewpubs in 1993.

Under the new rules, the cap on brewpub production doubled, growing from 5,000 barrels a year to 10,000. Now, brewpubs can distribute their beer using third-party distributors, and they can sell limited amounts of their own beer directly to retailers.

Rick Engel, the co-founder of Uncle Billy’s, opened Texas’ first brewpub in Houston in 1993, the first year brewpubs were made legal since Prohibition. Since then he has been working with members of the Texas Craft Brewers Guild to pass major reforms to beer laws.

This ties into our look at economic development policy in the state as well as the influence of interest groups in the state.

From the Texas Tribune: Report: Texas Leads Nation in 2013 Exonerations

For 2306's look at criminal justice in the near future. This can also be filed under "agenda setting."

Texas in 2013 exonerated more people who were wrongfully convicted of crimes than any other state, according to a new report from the National Registry of Exonerations.

Thirteen Texans were officially absolved of wrongdoing last year for crimes ranging from murder to drug possession. Some had spent more than a decade in prison, and others a few months. The state with the second-most exonerations was Illinois, with nine, followed by New York, with eight.

The national registry, a joint project of the University of Michigan Law School and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern University School of Law, was launched in 2012. It tracks every known exoneration in the United States since 1989. Texas has 133 exonerations listed. Only New York, with 152, and California, with 136, have more.

The project’s directors stress that many more wrongful convictions never make the list.

“There are many false convictions that we don’t know about,” said Samuel Gross, editor of the registry and co-author of the report. “The exonerations we know about are only the tip of the iceberg.”

- click here for the report.

And for the groups mentioned in the article:
- The National Registry of Exonerations.
- Texas Defender Service.
- Texas District and County Attorneys Association.

Opportunity in Texas: #1 for business, #38 for people

Two studies which purport top measure opportunity across each state have different things to say about Texas.

CNBC has had Texas #1 in recent surveys for business opportunity, but the measures used as part of the Opportunity Index - which focus on the factors that impact people, not businesses - place Texas far lower among the states.

This illustrates a few things we cover in 2306, namely the types of public policy priorities in the state and the impact of the state's individualistic political culture on state priorities.

From the Washington Monthly:

The Opportunity Index ranks states based on sixteen indicators that Measure of America codirector Kristen Lewis says are essential to the “infrastructure of opportunity” for individuals. These indicators include not just the basics—the availability of jobs, affordable housing, and quality education—but also what a growing body of research shows is critical to upward mobility: social capital and civic life. These factors make up, at the individual level, the equivalent of the “business-friendly” environment that company-focused rankings measure.

The outcomes under the Opportunity Index approach, needless to say, are radically different from those of CNBC. Under the 2013 Opportunity Index, Texas—top ranked in opportunities for business by CNBC—ranks thirty-eighth in opportunities for people. Meanwhile, Vermont, which invests nearly double what Texas does per pupil in K-12 education ($15,096 versus $8,562), ranks first on the Opportunity Index and thirty-second by CNBC.

. . . While some structural differences—such as the level of church membership—are less susceptible to public policy, federal, state, and local policy choices can have profound impacts on whether people have access to the building blocks of upward mobility: decent schools, safe streets, and even access to grocery stores with affordable healthy food. In some neighborhoods of Houston, says a report by Children at Risk, “areas as large as 10 miles have been identified as containing a single food source—gas stations that sell tobacco, alcohol and fatty snacks.” As a tragic—but unsurprising—consequence, as many as 47 percent of Harris County children are obese or overweight.

In the same way that the rankings of the U.S. News & World Report have influenced—for better or for worse—the investments and choices that colleges have made to improve their standings, it’s likely that the multiplicity of business-focused rankings have skewed the policy choices of states eager to attract companies within their borders. Texas, for example, spends $19 billion a year on tax incentives to woo companies to the state, according to the New York Times—at the same time, it cut education spending by $5.4 billion last year. In the last legislative session, Texas lawmakers passed yet more tax cuts, exempting small businesses from franchise taxes, lowering franchise tax rates, and creating a special tax break for data centers doing business in the state. Texas was also among the first states to develop a so-called war chest—the Texas Enterprise Fund—aimed at offering companies incentives to move to the state, along with a smorgasbord of other goodies, including grants and low-cost loans to businesses.

Written Assignment #3 - 8 week classes

I want you to write at least 150 words on the the following subject - based on whichever class you are in - and submit it through BlackBoard.

2305 - This week you will begin to look at the legislative branch - Congress - and if you have been following the news and keep up with commentary you know that there are questions about whether the institution is broken. I've complied a handful of posts related to this subject.

- I've put these under the label Is Congress Broken?

I want you to familiarize yourself with the subject and weigh in on the question. First off - Is Congress really broken, or is it functioning as intended? If it is, why is that the case and what can done about it?

2306 - We are witnessing yet another conflict between the national and state governments. This time over the abortion legislation passed in the 83rd legislative session which met this past spring. There are several other areas where the decisions of the state government have been challenged at the national level. These conflicts help illustrate the cultural conflict between Texas and the US. In one of the early set of slides we went over political culture around the nation - the individualistic, traditionalistic and moralistic cultures - and highlighted areas of conflict. We argued that cultural differences help explain the disputes that happen between the Texas and National government.

Using the dispute over access to abortion, as well as any others you may come across, I want you to test these whether it is indeed the case that current conflicts between Texas and the US boil down to cultural differences. Give examples and explain thoroughly.

Good luck and I look forward to what you write.

From the Texas Tribune: CPRIT Operations Moratorium Lifted Following Reforms

Another item we covered in 2306 when we read through Article 3 of the Texas Constitution is in the news:

State leadership decided on Wednesday that the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas has restored enough public trust to resume grant operations and finalize remaining contracts following a review of the agency’s processes and major reforms passed in the last legislative session.

On Wednesday, Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus lifted a moratorium on new grants placed on the agency in December 2012.

In 2007, Texas voters approved the use of $3 billion in bonds to create CPRIT and finance cancer research and the development of cancer treatments and prevention programs for 10 years. The institute came under scrutiny last year when a state audit revealed in January that $56 million in grants had been approved without the proper peer review process. Lawmakers grilled former members of the CPRIT oversight committee during the 83rd legislative session and eventually approved Senate Bill 149, which adds more checks and balances to the agency’s grant-making processes to ensure adequate peer review. Lawmakers also budgeted $595 million for the institute in the 2014-15 biennium

.
Note the following appointees to the oversight committee:

State leadership has appointed new members to a CPRIT oversight committee, which guides the work of the institute and approves all grant applications. Perry and Dewhurst have each made their three appointments to the committee. Straus has made two and still has one pending appointment.

Perry appointed Angelos Angelou, founder and principal executive of AngelouEconomics and former vice president of the Austin Chamber of Commerce; Gerry Geistweidt, an attorney who has argued cases before the Texas Supreme Court, among others; and Dr. William Rice, senior vice president of clinical innovation for St. David’s Healthcare and the Central and West Texas Division of the Hospital Corporation of America.

Dewhurst appointed Ned Holmes, a businessman with experience in finance and real estate; Dr. Craig Rosenfeld, a physician and chief executive of Collaborative Medical Development, which develops treatments for neurogenerative and psychiatric diseases; and Amy Mitchell, a cancer survivor and attorney at Fulbright and Jaworski.

Straus appointed Pete Geren, president of the Sid W. Richardson Foundation, which provides grants to educational, health, human service and cultural nonprofit organizations in Texas, and Dr. Cynthia Mulrow, senior deputy editor of Annals of Internal Medicine and a member of the prestigious Institute of Medicine.

Planned Parenthood v Abbott

Here's a link to the decision.

Here's the heart of the decision:

No ruling of this court will sway the opinion regarding abortion held by anyone. And, indeed, that is not the role of this court. The court may not and will not decide whether there should be abortions in Texas. This court is charged only with determining whether certain provisions of House Bill 2 are consistent with the Constitution of the United States under existing Supreme Court precedent. 

. . . Three established principles govern this court's consideration of House Bill 2: (1) Before fetal viability, a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy. (2) A law designed to further the State's interest in fetal life which imposes an undue burden on a woman's decision before fetal viability is unconstitutional. A state regulation that has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus is an undue burden. (3) After fetal viability, the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may regulate or proscribe abortion, except where it is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Having carefully considered the parties' briefing, stipulations, exhibits, trial testimony, arguments of counsel, and the applicable law3, the court concludes: (1) the act's admitting-privileges provision is without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus, and (2) the act's provisions that place restrictions on medication abortions do not place such an obstacle, except when a physician finds such an abortion necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. In so deciding, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

HB 2

The bill that was found party unconstitutional by a federal judge - HB 2 - was one of a handful of bill related to abortion in the 83rd session: 13 in the House and 7 in the Senate.

While HB 2 was introduced early in the legislative session - which is why it had such a low number - it was not driven through the legislative process until the three special sessions of the legislature called by the governor in the early summer.

Click here to look at the process in the first, second, and third session.

A federal judge overturns Texas' abortion laws

I predicted this in class (thank you very much).

The district court judge applied existing precedence to the case, which is why this is no surprise. Texas now gets to take the appeal to the 5th Circuit and the loser there will appeal to the Supreme Court. Then the fireworks will fly because the court may then be in a position to change the precedence established in previous abortion cases, including Roe v. Wade.

Which is probably the long term goal of supporters of the bill anyway.

Catching up with the healthcare.gov snafu

Much of this fits with 2305's coverage of the executive branch and its role in implementing the law. Here's the first of a few links to stories that relate to subject matter we've either covered, or will get to soon.

It takes you to an overview of the problems so far complied by Wonkblog's Sarah Kliff.

The snafu in question is the problem the federal government is having getting its health insurance exchange - which is meant to help the currently uninsured get insurance - up and running. In the 16 week 2305 classes we've been discussing the expanding role of the federal government, and creating exchanges for purchasing health insurance - for those who cannot afford it at the prices commanded in the existing marketplace - is an example. As far I know, the federal government has never done anything like this before. Some services - like Social Security and Medicare - are provided by the national government directly - so there is no need to create an exchange which allows people to purchase the service from a private provider. Others - like Medicaid - are funded by the national government, but run by the states.  

Kliff points out which states have opted to create their own exchanges and which have not.





The exchanges created in many of the states have apparently been working well - New York's for example.

Some aren't doing quite as well:

What about states running their own marketplaces? Are they doing any better?

It depends a bit on the state. A few, like Kentucky and Connecticut, have been able to enroll people pretty seamlessly. They credit this to extensive testing prior to launch and realistic expectations. Connecticut, for example, scaled back its workload about a year ago, deciding to focus on getting the really important pieces of the marketplace ready to launch on day one.

Other states have...had some trouble. Hawaii’s Web site only launched last Tuesday, two weeks after it was meant to go live. Oregon has signed up lots of people for Medicaid -- but technical issues have prevented their exchange, Cover Oregon, from enrolling anyone into private insurance coverage.

Note that Texas chose to not create its own exchange. This was a contentious topic in the 83rd session of the legislature earlier this year. People who want to purchase this insurance in Texas have to go to the national exchange - here's a report that Governor Perry wants Texans to sign up through the federal exchange. When we discussed federalism - in both 2305 and 2306 - we discussed the pros and cons of allowing state discretion in the implementation of public policies - this might be a further argument in favor of state implementation of laws.

For this week's look at the Texas budget in GOVT 2306

The plan is to look at both the budgetary process and the description of spending in the Fiscal Size Up.

Click here for past posts on the Texas budget - the topics vary depending on what was topical on a given day.

And here are a few random items topical today.

- Lawyer updates Fort Bend leaders on state finance lawsuit.

The massive cuts to public education budget in the 82nd Session of the legislature led to a - still ongoing - lawsuit by 600 school districts against the legislature alleging they violated the Texas Constitutions mandate that appropriate funds be provided to public education in the state. A Texas district judge agreed, but some funds were added in the 83rd Session - which led to a delay in the final verdict.

This story contains an appraisal of what the budget cuts will mean for the quality of the public education system.

- Leap backwards: TxDOT downgrading paved roads to gravel prompts new funding.

A "citizen activist" walks through the problems involved in Texas' method for funding roads in the state - especially roads in rural areas that are being heavily damaged by the increased activity associated with fracking. Not only are insufficient funds being made available for repair - leading the Department of Transportation to propose converting many of these roads to gravel - but few funds area available to police these areas.

The state is reaping the benefits of these increased revenues, but the areas where the drilling is occurring are not.

-Rep. Donna Howard Talks Family Planning, Education, and the Future of the Legislature

A member of the Texas legislature's Women's Health Caucus discusses efforts to undo cuts to women's health and family planning programs.

-Higher ed funding fails. 

Disagreements over how to distribute over $2 billion in tuition revenue bonds prevented the legislature from authorizing any new campus construction for higher education.

Medicaid Expansion in the 83rd Session

For both 2305 and 2306: One of the major questions facing the 83rd Texas legislative session was whether Texas should participate in the expansion of Medicaid encouraged by the ACA.

Texas ultimately opted to not do so. Opposition was driven by top statewide elected officials and Republican Party. Local government however were much more supportive of the expansion, as were health care providers.

- Here's a Texas Tribune story from January 26, 2013 which claimed the state would benefit from the expansion:

Expanding Medicaid is a "smart, affordable and fair" decision for Texas, according to a report issued by Billy Hamilton, a nonpartisan consultant commissioned by Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas and Texas Impact, a statewide interfaith network.

“If politics are set aside, the right decision is obvious,” wrote Hamilton, a former deputy comptroller of public accounts who was once the state’s chief revenue estimator. He argued that for an investment of $15 billion, Texas could draw down $100 billion in federal funds and expand health care coverage to 2 million low-income Texans over 10 years.

. . . In contrast to arguments that the Medicaid expansion would cost Texas too much money, Hamilton finds state spending on the Medicaid expansion could be met “many times over” with existing funds that the state, local jurisdictions and hospitals already spend on unreimbursed charity care for low-income adults. An estimated $1.8 billion in new state revenue generated by the expansion could offset the state’s match for the Medicaid expansion from 2014 to 2017, Hamilton says, adding that an estimated 231,000 jobs, $2.5 billion in local revenue and $67.9 billion in total economic output could be generated by 2016.

Here are a few other random stories related to the proposed expansion:

- Texas Hospital Association argues in favor of expansion.
- Texas Public Policy Foundation argues against it.
- The Legislative Reference Library lists the bills filed in the 83rd session concerning expansion.
- Texas Matters: The Cost of Not Expanding Medicaid.
- Texas Legislature Passes Measure To Prevent Medicaid Expansion.