For a look at HB 4 (78th Regular Session) ...

.. the legislation leading to tort reform in Texas: click here.

From Ballotpedia: Texas 1993 ballot measures

Texans reject very few amendments to the Texas Constitution, but in May 1993 they rejected three that would have addressed unequal funding in public schools. This loss led to the establishment of the Robin Hood Plan.

- Click here for some detail on the ballot measures.

For info on the Robin Hood Plan click here.

From the Houston Chronicle: How a wayward cow could change Texas' tort reform law

Laws can be interpreted creatively if it benefits the client.

- Click here fore the article.

On its face, it is a straightforward case. A west Texas farmer's cattle got out of their pasture, roamed onto a rural road and caused a car crash. A man injured in the crash sued the farmer for negligence.

Thanks to some outlandish logic and an attempt to limit the farmer's liability, attorney Philip Russ has turned the case into somewhat of a referendum on the limits of the 2003 tort reform law, which heavily regulated medical malpractice lawsuits and capped damages for pain and suffering.

Russ is seeking to get the negligence suit against his client dismissed, arguing that since the farmer is a retired doctor and the cows were under his care, it should have been filed as a medical malpractice suit. Because it was not, he argues, his client should not be liable for the injured man's hospital bills.

Besides acting in the best interests of his client, Russ, an Amarillo attorney who more often represents plaintiffs, is hoping his ploy also will illustrate something he says is even more ridiculous: the legal system's current interpretation of the state's landmark tort reform law.

Increasingly, he argues, defense attorneys are resorting to twisted logic to have cases classified as medical malpractice suits as a way of limiting the amount of damages for which their clients would be liable.

From Ballotpedia: Laws governing direct democracy in Texas

Texas does not allow the general population many opportunities to directly impact legislation. Here's a look at what is allowed.

- Click here for it.

Texas citizens have statewide access to just one of the six common forms of direct democracy--they can ratify or reject constitutional amendments to the Texas Constitution placed on the ballot by the Texas State Legislature.

Here is the full list:

- the legislatively referred constitutional amendment,
- the legislatively referred state statute,
- the initiated state statute (direct or indirect),
- the initiated constitutional amendment,
- the veto referendum (sometimes called the citizen referendum or the statute referendum),
- the statute affirmation (available only in Nevada), and
- the statewide recall.

A blast from the past: Texas Military Voting Qualifications, Proposition 2 (1954)

Members of the military - of the United States - could not vote in Texas prior to the passage of this amendment. It was ratified by a vote of 77% to 23%.

- Click here Ballotpedia's info on it.
- The Texas Reference Library has detail on what else was on the ballot.

Here's the language:

For the amendment of Sections 1 and 2 of Article VI of the Constitution of Texas so as to confer the privilege to vote upon members of the regular establishment of the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Force, or component branches thereof, who are otherwise qualified electors; and so as to limit voting by persons in the military service of the United States to the county in which the voter resided at the time of entering such service; and for the repeal of Section 2a of Article VI of the Constitution, which now permits qualified electors in military service to vote without payment of a poll tax in time of war.

Notice that they didn't have to pay a poll tax. I wonder if this reflects changing attitudes about the United States military following WW2. The military occupation of Texas was a distant memory.

A blast from the past: Texas Poll Tax Payment, Proposition 1 (1902)

I love BallotPedia. This was the only constitutional amendment on the ballot that year. It passed 65% to 35%.

- Click here for the link from Ballotpedia.

For the terminology of the joint resolution passed by the 27th session of the legislature, click here.

This was the wording on the ballot:

Amending Article 6, Section 2, of the Constitution of the State of Texas, requiring all persons subject to a poll tax to have paid a poll tax and to hold a receipt for same before they otter to vote at any election in this State, and fixing the time of payment of said tax.

A couple pages down you'll find the concurrent resolution designating the bluebonnet as the state flower.

Here's a description of the politics of that time from the Texas State Law Library:

By 1901 the movement to make payment of the poll tax a voting requirement had become so strong that the legislature proposed the amendment, and it was adopted in 1902 by an overwhelming majority. No single factor can account for the success of the poll tax voting requirement movement; the issue had been constantly pressed upon the public consciousness for years, and over that period various circumstances and developments eventually led segments of the population to favor it. At least three important elements were involved. First, there was the desire to "purify" the ballot, which was one of the reasons most often advanced by supporters of the 1902 amendment who felt vote-buying and other fraudulent election practices could be reduced by adding to the cost of voting and by more carefully regulating election administration. Second, many saw the poll tax as a means to legally disfranchise the Negro. (See Strong, "The Rise of Negro Voting in Texas," 42 American Political Science Review 510 (1948).) Third, the successes of the Populist movement in the late 19th century threatened the entrenched Democratic Party and led to a desire to disfranchise the poor farmers and laborers who formed the backbone of the radical Populist Party.

It was all about keeping the Democratic Party in power.

- Click here for a look at the source of the above text.

From the Texas Tribune: Court to Decide if Autopsy Counts as Health Care

Here's a story that merges our upcoming look at the Texas Judiciary - including the consequence of an elected judiciary - with our past look at Article 3 of the Texas Constitution. It also continues our ongoing look at cases that involved interpretations of the Texas Constitution - which is apparently not as clearly written as we might suppose.

The question posed is the extent of the protections that doctors and hospitals have as a result of the passage of tort reform - which was added to the Texas Constitution in 2003.

- Click here for the story.

Eleven years after a man's unexplained death in a Katy hospital sparked a lawsuit involving allegations of malpractice, deception and theft of a human heart, the bizarre case has made its way to the Texas Supreme Court, which will answer a simple yet macabre legal question: Does an autopsy fall under the definition of health care?

If the high court says yes, critics say it would be the latest decision by conservative justices broadening a landmark state law that makes it tougher to sue doctors and hospitals for alleged wrongdoing. Supporters of the legal challenge — brought on an appeal by Christus Health, then owner of the Christus St. Catherine Hospital in Katy — say Texas voters approved sweeping tort reforms in 2003 to limit lawsuits against health care providers, and that autopsies on dead patients are a valid part of the medical care hospitals provide.

The case traces back to the morning of Jan. 22, 2004, when Linda Carswell's husband, Jerry, admitted with kidney stones, was found dead in his hospital bed. Carswell wondered if his death was due to a narcotic the hospital had administered. Carswell has said she asked for an independent autopsy, but her husband's autopsy was performed by a separate hospital under the same ownership as Christus St. Catherine Hospital — a fact she said she did not know at the time. That autopsy, which was inconclusive, did not include a toxicology test, which Carswell said could have shed light on whether the narcotic had killed her husband.

Further complicating matters, the examiner who performed the autopsy also allegedly removed the dead man’s heart without Carswell’s consent. The hospital fought not to release the organ, saying it could be important evidence that would show Carswell's husband died of a heart attack.

After an appeals court ordered the hospital to release the heart to Carswell, a separate forensic biologist said it contained no human DNA — either because of the way it was preserved, or because there was a “real possibility that the heart submitted was not human,” according to court documents.

A jury sided with Carswell, who says she was misled by Christus Health about the autopsy’s independence and scope, and awarded her a rare $2 million fraud judgment against the health care provider. Christus Health appealed the case and is still fighting it, although it sold Christus St. Catherine Hospital to Houston Methodist in 2014.

A spokeswoman for Christus Health declined to comment for this article. But in court briefings, lawyers representing Christus Health asked the Texas Supreme Court to weigh in on whether Carswell's case should have fallen under the Texas Medical Liability Act. That law, the health care provider argues, defines the nebulous term “health care” broadly enough to include autopsies — which would render Carswell's suit moot because she did not meet the legal requirements to sue.

For background:

- Section 66 of Article 3 of the Texas Constitution.
- Analysis of Amendment No. 12 - the Tort Reform Amendment.
- The Texas Medical Liability Act.
- Wikipedia: Medical Malpractice in the United States.
- Wikipedia: Tort Reform.
 

From the Texas Tribune: Property Tax Relief Comes With Big Cost to State

A series of measures limiting the ability of local governments to collect property taxes may lead to an increase in sales taxes. The author is critical of Proposition One - the first of the proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution to be offered to the voters next month.

- Click here for the story.

If history is any guide, Texans will overwhelmingly approve a state constitutional amendment on Nov. 3 aimed at providing them some relief from rising property taxes.

But the expected savings on homeowners’ property tax bills, estimated at $126 on average, comes with a trade off: a permanent increase in state spending. Texas lawmakers will budget $600 million annually to cover the loss of revenue to school districts, which rely heavily on property taxes. That’s on top of about $8.4 billion already in the state budget each year to make up for three previous property tax relief measures implemented since 1997, according to the Legislative Budget Board.

All together, the state will be spending about $9 billion a year to offset property tax relief measures, or more than eight percent of the budget Gov. Greg Abbott signed in June.

“In many regards, we are creating a double taxation,” said state House Ways and Means Chairman Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton. “Most Texans aren’t going to see a reduction in their property tax at home and they are now and forever going to pay $600 million a year for this homestead exemption to the state.”

Bonnen was openly critical of property tax relief efforts throughout this year’s legislative session. Faced with strong interest among lawmakers to address fast-rising property tax bills, he ultimately backed a pared-down version of the Senate's proposal as part of a larger tax cut deal.

From The Texas Legislative Council: Analyses of Proposed Constitutional Amendments

Let's start talking about the proposed amendments in class.

- Click here for the document.

Warning: 700 New Laws Take Effect in Texas Today

For a full list of the laws taking effect today click below:

- Texas Legislature: Bills Effective on September 1, 2015.

You might want to look through it to make sure that whatever you were going legally yesterday is illegal today.

For detail:

- Houston Chronicle: New Texas laws taking effect September 1: How some will affect Texas.
- Fort Worth Start Telegram: Heads up! Nearly 700 new laws take effect Tuesday.
- Houston Matters: New Texas Laws Go Into Effect Sept. 1 — How Will They Affect You?

We'll open up one of these and walk through a few.

These are now on their way to being written into the Texas Code.

Now attention will turn to the proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution. Some laws can only take effect if parts of the constitution are changed in order to allow for it. Voters in the state will determine if they will pass this November 3rd.

For more on the proposals:

- Texas Legislative Council: Analyses of Proposed Constitutional Amendments.
- House Research Organization: Amendments Proposed.
- BallotPedia: Texas 2015 Ballot Measures.

All nine constitutional amendments passed

Story in the Texas Tribune.

They are almost always passed. And I have no idea why. That might be worth investigating.

Prop 2 - Texas Constitutional Amendment - 2013

Here's what the ballot wording will look like:

The constitional amendment eliminating an obsolete requirement for a State Medical Education Board and a State Medical Education Fund, neither of which is operational.

The purpose seem to just clean up the Texas Constitution of an extraneous section.

Click here for detail from the Texas Legislative Council.

The Texas Constitution currently requires a constitutional State Medical Education Board and State Medical Education Fund.  The program, created in 1952, did not ultimately serve its intended purpose so the loans from the fund were discontinued in 1988.  The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board absorbed the State Medical Education Fund as part of its overall duties for scholarships and student loans, making the constitutional board and fund obsolete.  HJR 79 eliminates the constitutional requirement to continue the board and fund.

Supporters Say: This constitutional amendment repeals an obsolete provision in the Texas Constitution. The State Medical Education Fund is operated by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, so there is no need to maintain the discontinued program in the constitution.

Opponents Say: No opposition.

Prop 1 - Texas Constitutional Amendment - 2013

Click here for detail.

Allows the surviving spouse of a member of the United States military that was killed in action a complete property tax exemption on their residential homestead until the surviving spouse remarries.  The amount of the property tax exemption can be transferred from the home the serviceman and spouse owned at the time of death to another property. 

Analyses of the proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution

A look at all nine from the Texas Legislative Council.

Time for a new state constitution?

The Dallas Morning News editorializes that we do.

Our state has many things going for it, but our constitution probably isn’t one. Mostly, it’s a relic of a bitter, bygone era after the Civil War and Reconstruction left Texans in ill humor when it came to trusting state leaders.

The solution was a constitution that takes power from the elected and gives it to the electorate. That may sound well and good, but in Texas, voters must return to the polls every two years, usually the November after a Legislature, to ratify or reject many issues that barely register on statewide public radar.

Turnout is typically less than 10 percent — often far less. Does an entire state need to weigh in on whether El Paso County can tax itself to create a parks district (2011)? Important, perhaps, in El Paso County, but the other 253 have their own situations.

This year, every Texas voter can help decide whether to repeal a constitutional provision on creating a hospital district in Hidalgo County. Again, no small issue there, but elsewhere? Still, it’s on the list as Proposition 8 among nine amendments on the Nov. 5 ballot.

Unlike the U.S. Constitution — which has been amended 27 times — the Texas Constitution functions as a limiting document. With no equivalent of the “necessary and proper clause,” our state’s document has grown like kudzu. It may not be the longest in America, but it’s a contender (Alabama and California are even worse).

After Nov. 5, Texas voters will have weighed in on more than 660 amendments, many of the intensely local or fabulously obscure variety. To date, about 73 percent have been approved.

This editorial board will research and dutifully recommend outcomes on the nine amendments this year and publish them in the coming days. It’s the least we can do.

The least our leaders could do is give some serious thought to whether this is any way to run a state. If nothing else, asking each of Texas’ 254 counties to hold these elections every two years costs money that could better go elsewhere.

A list of the proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution.

SJR 1		The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas to assist in the financing of priority projects in the state water plan to ensure the availability of adequate water resources.
SJR 18		The constitutional amendment to authorize the making of a reverse mortgage loan for the purchase of homestead property and to amend lender disclosures and other requirements in connection with a reverse mortgage loan.
HJR 24		The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization.
SJR 42		The constitutional amendment relating to expanding the types of sanctions that may be assessed against a judge or justice following a formal proceeding instituted by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
SJR 54		The constitutional amendment repealing Section 7, Article IX, Texas Constitution, which relates to the creation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County.
HJR 62		The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services of the United States who is killed in action.
HJR 79		The constitutional amendment eliminating an obsolete requirement for a State Medical Education Board and a tate Medical Education Fund, either of which is operational.
HJR 87		The constitutional amendment authorizing a home-rule municipality to provide in its charter the procedure to fill a vacancy on its governing body for which the unexpired term is 12 months or less.
HJR 133		The constitutional amendment to authorize a political subdivision of this state to extend the number of days that aircraft parts that are exempt from ad valorem taxation due to their location in this state for a temporary period may be located in this state for purposes of qualifying for the tax exemption.
HJR 147		The constitutional amendment repealing Section 7, Article IX, Texas Constitution, which relates to the creation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County.

Proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution from the 83rd session

I assume this is the full list - I'll confirm soon - of proposed revisions according to the Legislative Reference Library of Texas. Notice that these are joint resolutions - as required by the Texas Constitution - and that the governor need not sign them.

These have to be ratified by the electorate in an election coming up this November in order to take effect.

Texas constitutional amendment regarding open beaches debate in the House

This is an attempt to overturn recent decisions by the Texas Supreme Court that negated the Texas Open Beaches Act.

From the Chronicle:

A Texas House panel on Monday debated where private property rights end and public beaches begin, as lawmakers considered a proposed constitutional amendment and another measure that could reverse two contentious state Supreme Court rulings on coastline boundaries.

Rep. Harold Dutton is sponsoring an amendment and companion bill that would more clearly define boundaries for public beaches and hold them in a public trust. The amendment means the law would become impervious to future court challenges should it be approved by Texas voters and added to the state Constitution.

Both are in response to a 2010 Texas Supreme Court ruling on the Open Beaches Act that found if an act of nature erodes a beach, the landowner's right to the remaining property is not diminished by state law — even if it is now part of the beach. A federal appeals court questioned that decision, but the court reaffirmed it last year.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit that was filed after Hurricane Rita pounded the Texas shoreline in 2005, eroding the sand and leaving Carol Severance's home on a sandy beach along Galveston Island's West Beach. The state ordered Severance to demolish her home, saying her land was now considered a public beach. Instead, Severance sued.

Dutton, D-Houston, said Monday that since 1959, the Open Beaches Act has stated that a beach up to the vegetation line is state property and therefore open to the public.

In the Severance case, Texas argued that its right to the land automatically shifts with the sand, but the court disagreed.

Proposed term limits on statewide elected officials passes Texas Senate

The vote was overwhelming: 27-4. Now it goes to the House. From My SA:

Statewide elected officials, including the governor, would be limited to two consecutive terms in office under a proposed constitutional amendment approved 27-4 on Tuesday by the Texas Senate.

Gov. Rick Perry, Texas' longest-serving governor, and other current officeholders affected by the measure would be “grandfathered” and allowed to seek two more terms if it were enacted.

Senate Joint Resolution 13 by Sen. Kevin Eltife would require Texas House approval by a two-thirds vote before being put on a statewide ballot. If both chambers approved, the proposal would not require Perry's signature, only voter approval. If passed, it would apply only to officials in the state executive branch.

The bill's supporters claim it has nothing to do with Rick Perry's lenghty service as governor, but ....

Perry's long service is the undeniable elephant in the room when term limits are discussed.

“No Texas governor before Rick Perry ever served two full four-year terms consecutively, but Perry's threat to run for a fourth full term in 2014 opens the prospect of him serving as governor for eighteen years,” said Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson. “This has everybody, including Sen. Eltife, wondering whether this is a good idea and whether future governors should have this option.”

Jillson said two-thirds of states restrict statewide elected officials to two four-year terms. He said Texas is one of a dozen that have four-year terms with no limit.

Lobbyist and consultant Bill Miller said, “Regardless of whether you say it is not about Perry, he is the poster boy for the bill.”

Miller was critical of the measure, saying it “is a candidate talent killer and enhances immeasurably the power of staff who are beyond the reach of voters.”

Jillson and Rice University political scientist Mark Jones took note that after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president four times, Congress passed and states adopted the 22nd Amendment limiting presidential service.

“Just as FDR's unprecedented tenure in office helped generate support for a two-term limit for the U.S. president, Perry's equally unprecedented tenure has bolstered the efforts of term limits advocates in Texas,” Jones said.

More analyses of the proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution

For review in class:

- The Texas Legislative Council.
- House Research Organization.
- League of Women Voters.