Workman to challenge Bolton in HD 47

Today, Republican Paul Workman made official his intent to run against Democrat State Rep. Valinda Bolton in House District 47, in Travis County.

Three announced Republicans in Travis County to date (two in HD 48, one in HD 47). Campaign season approaches.

Masset: Prop 4 is a bad idea

Former RPT political director Royal Masset chimes in on Proposition 4 over at Quorum Report.

To wit: This will just be another legal mandate hanging around the neck of future legislators.

Early voting ended today and election day is Tuesday. On my way to Lewisville yesterday, I saw a big "vote yes on 4" billboard in Arlington (bought and paid for by Texans for Tier One - shame they couldn't use that money to fund research, since they're so insistent upon it!).

Consider this my billboard against Prop 4. Masset's line above, and his further argument found at QR, are the copy for it.

If you haven't yet voted, please go vote NO on Proposition 4.

Presumed AG candidate announces re-election campaign for House

State Rep. Dan Branch, long rumored/assumed to be running for attorney general, announced his reelection campaign today. Jason Embry at the Statesman has more here.

So, process story time. What does it all mean?

Embry's got a "source close to the campaign" saying that this means Branch is definitely not running for A.G. It's only to be expected that the longer KBH holds out, the fewer presumed candidates will crowd the rumor mill. We've had no definite word from the Cruz or Wainwright camps on whether their candidates are officially out of the A.G. race or not.

Remember, current Attorney General Greg Abbott has announced his reelection campaign, and going toe-to-toe with Abbott in a primary would be pretty suicidal. Not to mention, all the rhetoric from the other camps so far has centered on a presumptive move by Abbott to run for another office.

Which office? Austin assumes Lieutenant Governor. And an Abbott/Dewhurst showdown ain't likely. So if Abbott were to run for LtGov, it would have to be precipitated by a Dewhurst appointment to the Senate.

And as long as KBH stays where she is, that obviously can't happen.

We've canvassed this over and over again. Branch's announcement makes a lot of sense for him, and for his district, and ultimately for the RPT. Expect more Republicans, who have been in various rumor mills for positions that depend on a KBH resignation, to start making announcements about reelection or, in some cases, putting their campaigns on hold.

Project 19 to kick off nationwide tour in Austin Tuesday

Project 19, a non-partisan group dedicated to educating women political leaders, will be in Austin to kick off a nationwide tour in honor of the 90th anniversary of ratification of the 19th Amendment.

For those of you delinquent in your U.S. Constitution history, the 19th Amendment extended the vote to women, and was ratified by the states in 1920. There are some great articles about the passage and ratification of the amendment here, which include a vote breakdown in the House and Senate (proof that without Republicans, women would have had to wait still longer for the ability to vote for their representation).

Details for the Austin event:

Location: Texas State Capitol Building, South Steps
Time: 10 AM
Speakers: State Representative Diana Maldonado, Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir, Project 19 and Project 19 Foundation Co-Founders, Lisa Copeland and Robin Ford.

I'd like to see a lot of Republican faces in the crowd - even though Democrats lead the speaking agenda, I think it is really important for all women to celebrate our having the legal privilege to vote. Remember that without that ability, women would be subject to leaders and representatives without having a say in who those leaders and representatives are. If you are going to live under a system of laws, you should have some say in who makes and enforces those laws. That's what our system of government is founded upon - and it is applied equally to Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc.

Texas Libertarians release positions on amendments

The Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Texas released a list of endorsements on the proposed Texas constitutional amendments today.

The LPT recommends a "NO" vote on Props. 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10. They also recommend a "YES" vote on Prop. 2 and 7. They opted not to take a position on Props. 3, 5, and 9. On Prop. 11, the Libertarian Party of Texas could not reach a consensus.

Full list with explanations on each can be found here.

National Taxpayers Union weighs in on TX propositions

The National Taxpayers Union has released a nationwide voter guide on ballot initiatives, including on the amendment propositions that Texans are deciding on even as I type.

Check out the entire list here.

For Texas, NTU is recommending a "NO" vote on Props 1 and 8, and a "YES" vote on Props 2, 3, 5, and 11. They did not make recommendations on the remaining propositions.

Perceptions of Beauty

I highly recommend checking out this video from Dove, about perceptions of beauty.

I've never been a huge fan of some of Dove's promotional material (the half-dressed women don't really do much for combating popular assumptions of beauty, and in fact reinforce ideas about female sexuality, in my opinion). But, the Campaign for Real Beauty is a great idea, and this video, entitled "Evolution," is fantastic and thought-provoking.

http://www.dove.us/?dl=/features/videos/default.aspx%7Ccp-documentid=7049579%7Cvideo-id=1&source=shareBlogger

Wallbuilders makes recommendations for Nov. election

Wallbuilders has issued their recommendations on the constitutional amendment proposals. The full list can be found here.

We can number them among the groups that have come out against Proposition 4.

Just a reminder, I've linked to several different conservative groups' positions on the amendments and some individuals' stances in this post. If you're interested in the liberal take on them, you can find Burnt Orange Report's stances here, and Houston's Off the Kuff has information from the left under this tag.

Major fail: Lewisville ISD decline to define blogs as media

While there is no way I would consider myself a journalist in the traditional sense, as a political blogger who occasionally dabbles in news and not just opinionated punditry I find Lewisville ISD's recent decision to only define media as "print or broadcast" extraordinarily pedantic.

WhosPlayin has more on this here.

As a Lewisville ISD alumna (Fightin' Farmer Class of 1998!), I have to say, my experiences with the district leave me unsurprised at this turn of events.

Top Tier One universities fail core curricula test

One of the loudest arguments we're hearing in favor of Proposition 4 is that if the state of Texas has more Tier One research universities, the quality of higher education will improve. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni has been working on a project, the results of which appear to contradict the idea that research universities provide an inherently superior education to students.

The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy is a fantastic resource for those interested in following trends in higher education in the U.S. This latest information comes via director of research George Leef, reporting on the American Council of Trustees and Alumni project "What Will They Learn?".

Yale University and the University of California-Berkeley, top research universities that Texas' Prop 4 proponents no doubt wish to emulate, are among the schools that have flunked an important test ACTA has applied to major universities. ACTA took a look at several major universities across the nation to determine the value of their core curriculum, those courses that every student who passes through the school have to study. These include literature, foreign languages, U.S. government/history, economics, mathematics, and natural/physical science. ACTA evaluated several universities based on these courses: to get an “A” a school had to meet at least six of the seven core subjects; to get a “B,” four or five; to get a “C,” three; a “D,” two; schools with only one or none flunked.

Via Leef, emphasis mine:

Of the 100 schools ACTA examined, only five got an A: the University of Arkansas, the University of Texas, Texas A&M, the U.S. Military Academy (i.e., West Point) and Brooklyn College. Each had six of the seven.

Thirty-three schools received B grades, including the University of Chicago, Duke, Columbia, Notre Dame, the University of North Carolina, and Ohio State.

Twenty schools received C grades, including Princeton, Stanford, and UCLA.

Seventeen schools received D grades, including Harvard, and the University of Virginia.

Finally, pulling the average way down, were twenty-five Fs, including Yale, Berkeley, Brown, Amherst, Rice, Johns Hopkins, and Northwestern.

Clearly, so-called "elite" or Tier One schools are no better at educating students thoroughly than lesser schools. Look at that list of the schools that failed ACTA's litmus test - several of them are well-known research universities.

Bringing this home: for Texans, who are listening to a pitch for the state to spend money specifically on more research univerisites that includes a plea that such spending will improve higher education, ACTA's findings are damning. Texas students need the opportunity to get well-rounded, thorough education at the university level, and our schools should aim to get an "A" on the ACTA test. There is no evidence that spending money to create more Tier One schools will help any school achieve this goal, and ACTA's findings demonstrate that there is no connection between research prowess and high education standards.

Once again, I ask you to please vote NO on Proposition 4.

Frightening abortion statistic from the CDC

I don't often comment on social issues on this blog, largely because I feel like the people reading it don't need persuasion on them. There are a great many places on the internet and in the conservative community that will be happy to give you long diatribes about those issues, and precious few that tackle some of the state fiscal issues I try to take on.

But I read something this morning that left me so deeply disturbed, and reminded of the work that still has to be done to stop abortion in this country. Asian Conservatives, a fantastic blog y'all must read, has a post up today that will absolutely chill your bones.

The Centers for Disease Control has an Abortion Surveillance report out that shows a disproportionate number of abortions happening in the black American community. From the CNS News story, emphasis mine:

Abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of death combined, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2005, the latest year for which the abortion numbers are available.

Abortion killed at least 203,991 blacks in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race in 2005, according to the CDC. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year.

Y'all, I can't even fathom this.

More than heart disease.

More than cancer.

More than accidents.

The systematic murder of over 200,000 children, all of one race, in 2005 alone.

The pro-life movement has to take a different approach. Picketing Planned Parenthood isn't going to do it. Holding up pictures of aborted fetuses is not going to do it. All the billboards and other public advertisements are not going to do it. I'll venture to say, even if we are one day able to outlaw abortion, we will simply be tackling the symptom, and not the problem itself. We have to go into these communities and care for the women who are left with so few options. We need our churches to open their doors, and the people there to open their arms. I know we have the resources - we just need the willpower.

One local organization that does a fantastic job with these things, and more, is Austin LifeCare.

Y'all, think about it. Over 200,000 black children murdered.

As Dr. Alveda King put it, abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of. Let's please stop debating the necessity of caring for pregnant women, and do it. Society has failed not just women in this regard, but an entire generation and more of children, who were supposedly conceived in a free nation that would gladly welcome them. I feel like there can be nothing good, nothing "free," about a society that allows, and seems to encourage, this kind of genocide.

Lufkin legislator's concerns about Texas Tomorrow Fund are legit

The Houston Chronicle reported this morning that State Rep. Jim McReynolds (D-Lufkin), is seeking an opinion from Atty. General Greg Abbott on the Texas Prepaid Higher Education Tuition Board decision to change the payout on the Texas Tomorrow Fund.

While voters are going to the polls to decide, among other things, whether to endow a fund for more research universities in Texas, students across the state are being faced with the reality that they simply may not be able to afford college. Their parents, seeing how hard it might be to fund a secondary education outright, invested in the Texas Tomorrow Fund to avoid this very situation. Now, the money paid into the system cannot be taken out for any circumstance, save for tuition and fees, without payees taking a pretty huge hit.

About 108,000 Texas Tomorrow Fund participants have been notified that the payout will change. McReynolds has stated that his asking for opinion is not a judgment on Comptroller Susan Combs or the TPHET Board. He feels like the legislature could have handled this one, had they known (of course, that assumes that a majority in the legislature a) cares two figs about higher education customers in Texas and b) could have untangled the mess without aggravating the situation).

The Texas Tomorrow Fund was closed to new enrollment in 2007, unsustainable in the wake of tuition deregulation and skyrocketing tuition costs. This action by the board and the comptroller is an attempt, says the Chronicle, to stabilize the fund, which has faced an incredible shortfall in the wake of tuition dereg.

McReynolds has the right idea here, seeking to protect the customers who trusted the state with their money (a shame this kind of thinking doesn't extend to tax dollars, honestly). Regardless of Abbott's eventual opinion on the matter, the state needs to address the tuition increases that led to this problem to begin with, and take a long hard look at higher education funding and accountability - and finding a way to protect the remaining participants of the Texas Tomorrow Fund.

What effect has football had in American higher ed?

This is pretty interesting - a couple of UT professors will debate next week on the question, "Is college football a positive influence in American universities?"

Great question. I don't have a really good answer myself, not having anything other than anecdotal evidence to base an opinion on. But, I will say this: when your school administration is more concerned with passing a fee increase to fund a stadium than improving commuter access, you have to wonder whether football is worth it.

Someone also once said to me that a good football team means that your degree will be worth more. That's disturbing, and I don't think it can be entirely true - but there's something to be said in certain fields for going to a school people have actually heard of, and football is one way schools achieve that (more so than other sports, certainly).

That this debate is happening at the University of Texas at Austin while the Longhorns are in the hunt for a Big 12 championship and (knock on wood) shot at the national championship is really, really interesting.

Wednesday, 3pm, in room 2.112 of the Recreational Sports Center. Info can be found on the UT College of Liberal Arts site here.

Young Conservatives of Texas questions UT-Dallas president's actions on Prop 4

The University of Texas at Dallas, one of the schools that will presumptively benefit from Proposition 4 early on, came under scrutiny this week after university president Dr. David Daniel sent a message out to students and faculty supporting said proposition.

Young Conservatives of Texas issued a press release stating their concerns.

According to Texas Government Code, Section 566.06, state agencies may not use appropriated money to attempt to influence the passage or defeat of a legislative measure. YCT questions the use of state resources in this case, as universities are defined as state agencies under the code.

It's a legitimate concern - was taxpayer money just used to promote a ballot measure? School districts come under scrutiny for this kind of activity, frequently during bond elections (famously, a few years ago now, Round Rock ISD was caught showing videos to students promoting a bond package, encouraging them to ask their parents to vote "yes" - exposure of this action led to the defeat of the bond package). Did a similar thing happen at the University of Texas at Dallas?

Even if Dr. Daniel's email was not strictly illegal, it is certainly an ethically gray area for a public university employee to send out official emails supporting or opposing a ballot measure.

Update on Constitutional Amendment Endorsements

Some more conservative/Republican endorsements in the constitutional amendment election have come out.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is campaigning for Proposition 11.

HD 52 Republican candidate Stephen Casey lists his voting recommendations. Add him to the list of folks against Prop 4.

Texas Conservative Review has their recommendations listed on their site.

To recap, you can find recommendations from Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Alliance, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, and State Rep. Wayne Christian. Information from Galveston County Tax Assessor-Collector Cheryl Johnson, and the Texas GOP's position, on Props. 2, 3, 5, and 11 can be found here. Info on Prop. 4 from Young Conservatives of Texas can be found here. Free Market Foundation chimes in to set the record straight on Props. 2 and 3.

Early voting continues through next Friday!

Very light voter turnout so far in Travis County

Hey you. Reading this blog. Yes, I mean you.

Have you voted yet?

11 proposed Texas constitutional amendments on the ballot.

Early voting started Monday.

All kinds of info on this blog, in the newspapers, all over the internet.

No excuses. GO VOTE.

559 voted in person on Monday in Travis County; 825 voted in person today (Tues).

These are things that affect your day to day life in Texas (okay, some of them). These are things that you can do something about NOW. You don't have to wait on your congressman or senator to vote the way you asked them to (or to do the very opposite, as some of us are all too aware). You can take a stand on important issues facing Texans RIGHT NOW.

Go vote. Polls open up at 7am. Here's a list of locations in Travis County. There is nothing stopping you. Go vote.

Radio appearance today at 5:00pm

I'll be on Jason Moore's show on KWEL 1070 AM (Midland/Odessa) around 5pm today to talk constitutional amendments (namely Prop 4).

Check out http://www.kwel.com/ for the Listen Live link.

Disabled vet homestead exemption in Texas

I noticed that a very popular search term that leads readers to Blue Dot Blues is "homestead exemption for disabled veterans." I'm sharing now the information my husband dug up regarding the issue.

I am the daughter of a disabled veteran. I think it is extremely important that everyone have access and knowledge about the information I'm sharing here, because disabled vets aren't just the injured who come back from the war. Disabled vets are also the men and women who served in the military, and later in life develop conditions that leave them disabled. My mother has Lou Gehrig's Disease, is 100% disabled, and she is a Vietnam and Cold War veteran of the United States Navy.

FAQ on disabled vet homestead property tax exemption from the Texas Comptroller's office:

http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/proptax/disabledvetfaq.html

Comptroller's Tax Form (to be filled out and turned into your local chief appraiser's office):

http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxforms/vetexempt.pdf

The Travis County tax office has a great fact sheet available as well:

http://www.traviscountytax.org/pdfs/090724DisabledVetFactSheet.pdf

The veteran's homestead exemption does not expressly mention a spouse, a surviving spouse, or who qualifies for the exemption. According to the Denton County CAD office (I called them first when I was digging for info), the exemption only applies if the veteran in question is listed on the title for the home - no word yet on how this might work if a spouse is not on the title, but is the disabled veteran. The Veterans' Administration is the government agency that determines who is and is not a disabled veteran, and to what degree benefits may be conferred upon that individual.

Nationwide, tuition costs are rising - and so is the tax burden

The New York Times had an interesting piece up this morning about the rising cost of college tuition in the United States. Studies by the College Board show that, at just public universities, average tuition and fees at public two-year colleges are $2,544, up 7.3 percent from the previous year.

This is a story we in Texas know all too well, since in-state tuition at public universities has risen about 86% just since 2003.

Patrick Callan, from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, told the NYT (emphasis mine): “Given the financial hardship of the country, it’s simply astonishing that colleges and universities would have this kind of increases. It tells you that higher education is still a seller’s market. The level of debt we’re asking people to undertake is unsustainable.”

Something else I thought very interesting in the NYT story, again emphasis mine: "While total education borrowing increased 5 percent from 2007-8 to 2008-9, the report said, there was a large shift to federal loans and away from private loans. Federal loans increased by about $15 billion last year, while nonfederal education loans declined by about half, to about $11 billion."

Just stop and think for a moment about the student loan industry, and Fannie Mae. Does anyone else see a problem here?!

And think about this, also from the NYT and emphasis mine: "Colleges and universities provided 41 percent of the grant aid, the federal government 32 percent, the states 11 percent and employers and other sources 32 percent."

People, WAKE UP. 32 percent of all grant aid is FEDERAL grant aid, all taxpayer-funded, going to prop up higher education. Eleven percent comes from the states - again all taxpayer-funded.

And tuition keeps going up. And universities keep begging the state and federal government for more money, for things like "tier one" research. And students go deeper into debt, in an economy that is collapsing precisely because of the unsustainable amount of debt in this country.

Our public universities are not subject to external audits, sunset review, or an elected accountability process, and are raising tuition much faster than the rate of population and inflation. Let's not forget the scandal at the University of Houston (one of the schools seeking to benefit from Proposition 4, should it pass) regarding tuition dollars being spent on booze, business class travel, and in one case a million-dollar home (more here).

We need a system of accountability in public higher ed. There is no way to get around that.

Meghan McCain - Why her pic was not cool

Okay, yes, lame post title. Forgive me, blogfather.

The point, though, is that Meghan McCain's now infamous Twitter pic of her bust and an Andy Warhol book was really, really not cool.

Some bloggers have defended McCain, and while I think the point there is valid, I also think that the backlash against McCain in the wake of the photo was not totally unwarranted.

I can't tell you how many long battles I've fought and been privy to over the objectification of women - by women (at it's heart, the battle over the Vagina Monologues is about this very issue). We got the vote, got the right to our own property, have an equal opportunity for jobs, and we're winning the wage battle. Women are the top earners of bachelor degrees. And yet, when I went to the grocery store on Sunday, the magazines I was greeted with at the checkout stand were 10-1 borderline pornography. Most were no more graphic than McCain's picture, image-wise. But even Seventeen magazine, a glossy aimed at girls much younger than that, featured a headline about what "turns him on - and off!," right above a busty airbrushed photo of some teen idol.

Y'all, we're talking about InStyle and Glamour, not exactly Playboy. The image these magazines presents to young women (and I like to point out, most of these magazines are at eye-level for young boys, as well) is that of a buxom woman with a come-hither smile, next to headlines about orgasms and male pleasure. Is it any wonder our view of women, their roles in society, and women's views of themselves are so complicated?

I want to make something clear. These pictures don't make the women whores. Meghan McCain doesn't deserve, and should not get, that label as a result of her picture. Name-calling and catcalling are a problem as much as the picture itself.

Perhaps that last point sounds contradictory, but my argument is with both sides in this. And my last note, to Meghan's defenders: the call for modesty is, in part, a call for women to be more than their bodies. We are more than the sum of our parts. Meghan's picture sets us back in our quest to be more than that, because it is part of a larger problem. I would think that since institutional feminism has failed so utterly to defend women from objectification, conservatives would be able to lead the charge. The fallout from McCain's photo, and indeed the photo itself, leads me to believe we still have a very, very long way to go.

The Howard Roark Effect

Jennifer Burns: Howard Roark in New Delhi - The surprising popularity of a libertarian hero in India. H/T Cato @ Liberty

Not only do Indians perform more Google searches for Rand than citizens of any country in the world except the United States, but Penguin Books India has sold an impressive number of copies -- as many as 50,000 of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead each since 2005, a number comparable to sales there by global best-seller John Grisham. And that's not counting the ubiquitous pirated copies of her works that are hawked at rickety street stalls, sidewalk piles, and bus stations - an honor that Rand, a fierce defender of intellectual property rights, probably would not have appreciated.

In recent years, the so-called "Howard Roark effect" has swept across wealthy Indian society. Shortly after winning Miss India Earth, the country's top beauty pageant, in 2005, Niharika Singh cited The Fountainhead as her favorite book. "Ayn Rand helped me win the crown," she declared. Other stars, including biotech queen Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, actress Preity Zinta, and soccer-player-turned-dancer Baichung Bhutia have all credited Rand with helping them succeed.

One word: AWESOME.

Venable: Prop 11 protects private property

Prop. 11 Provides Greater Private Property Protection
By Peggy Venable

We Texans value our property and private property rights are at the very core of a free society.

That explains why the controversial Kelo decision of 2005 rocked the nation as property rights activists rolled up their sleeves to get greater protections written into state constitutions, as the U.S. Supreme Court suggested.

The Texas legislature has passed a bill which, if passed on the November ballot, will improve private property rights in the State of Texas. By declaring that Prop.11 is “counterfeit eminent domain reform,” some opponents are suggesting the legislation doesn’t go far enough.

Rather than focusing on what is in the proposition, some naysayers are busy telling you what is not in the proposition. It is true that good faith negotiations, diminished access to property, relocation of displaced landowners, and voter approval of eminent domain are not covered in the proposal.

However, those are not issues which arose from the Kelo case that this legislation was designed to remedy. Those are issues that came up in property owners’ opposition to the Trans Texas Corridor. Should the issues be addressed? Sure, but they can just as easily be addressed in statute as the constitution.

You may recall that the Kelo decision allowed local entities to take property – even homesteads – if the local government could get more in tax revenues were the property converted to another use – like a shopping center.

This isn’t the legislature’s first try to stop that opportunity. Legislation passed in the 2007 Legislative Session didn’t make it to the ballot. With the support of the bill sponsor, Rep. Frank Corte, Gov. Rick Perry vetoed the bill.

Some would have you believe that Gov. Perry’s 2007 veto of HB 2006 should result in the defeat of this measure because it does not propose that everything that was in that bill be added to the Texas Constitution. Even the Farm Bureau isn’t buying that logic. That veto may have cost the governor the Farm Bureau’s endorsement this campaign cycle, but the Farm Bureau is strongly in support of this constitutional measure. They recognize that this does not give them everything they would like, but it certainly moves us forward in the process of private property rights protection.

Here is how Proposition 11 would amend the Constitution in four primary ways:

1. It would define the term “public use,” rather than leaving the definition of that term up to court interpretation;

2. It would specify that the taking of property for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes is not a public use;

3. It would provide that property taken to eliminate urban blight must be done on a parcel by parcel basis; and

4. It would require that any future power of eminent domain granted requires a 2/3 vote of the Texas Legislature.

So, why a constitutional amendment instead of statutory reform? The U.S. Supreme Court in rendering the Kelo case overturned years of precedent and changed the definition of public use that is found in both the Texas and U.S. Constitution. To prevent further erosion of property rights in Texas, there had to be a constitutional fix to the definition of “public use.”

The definition used in Proposition 11 defines both what public use is, and reiterates what it is not. Public use does not include the taking of property for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes. That’s protection we don’t have if the proposal fails. But, Prop 11 goes even further to prevent the taking of property to eliminate urban blight except on a parcel by parcel basis. This will stop local governments from declaring a few pieces of property as blighted and then taking all the property in an area for a development project.

Passage of private property protection has been a long time coming in Texas. Passage of Prop. 11 will send a clear message to legislators that the issue is of utmost concern to the voters. Failure to pass the measure will let them know there is no need to continue to work on the issue because the people making the most noise will not even be content with a victory.

To see all the recommendations from Americans for Prosperity, click here: http://americansforprosperity.org/101909-afp-texas-recommendations-texas-constitutional-amendments

Peggy Venable is the State Director for Americans for Prosperity- Texas, www.afptx.org.

State Rep Wayne Christian releases recommendations on amendments

State Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Center) has released his recommendations on the 11 proposed Texas Constitutional Amendments. Please see below.

In brief, Rep. Christian (who is also president of the Texas Conservative Coalition) recommends the following:

YES: Props. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11
NO: Props. 1, 4, 8, and 9

Proposition 1

The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.

Summary: This amendment would allow the legislature to authorize a municipality or county to issue bonds or notes to finance the acquisition of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation.

Recommendation: Oppose. Although it is important to protect our military zones from encroachment and this amendment does not require local taxes to be increased, it could serve as another reason to raise already high property taxes.

Proposition 2

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead.

Summary: This amendment would authorize the legislature to provide for the taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of its value as a residence homestead, regardless of whether residential use by the owner is considered to be the highest and best use of the property.

Recommendation: Support. Evaluating a house as a house (instead of potential commercial property) will help keep property taxes down for many homeowners.

Proposition 3

The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.

Summary: The proposed amendment would remove the requirement that administrative and judicial enforcement of uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for property tax purposes originate in the county where the tax is imposed. It would also remove the exception that the legislature may provide for political subdivisions with boundaries extending outside the county. It would instead give the legislature full discretion to prescribe the manner of the enforcement of uniform appraisal standards and procedures.

Recommendation: Support. This will ensure that properties across the state are appraised in a more uniform and equal manner in order to address inequities and inconsistencies in current property appraisals. The state already has the ability to set standards, just has no ability to enforce them.

Proposition 4

The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund.

Summary: This amendment would create the national research university fund for the purpose of providing an independent source of funding to enable emerging state research universities in Texas to achieve national prominence as major research universities. The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University would not be eligible to receive money from the fund. The fund would be initially supported by money from a long-dormant permanent higher education fund, but will also allow the legislature to appropriate money.

Recommendation: Oppose. This fund will be a disservice to students as the focus of these “emerging universities” turns to research in order to obtain Tier 1 status. Additionally, it provides a drain on taxpayer money as the fund will eventually depend on legislative appropriations. It will also probably lead to higher tuition for students at the identified schools.

Proposition 5

The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.

Summary: This amendment would authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities instead of a board for each entity.

Recommendation: Support. This will also allow two or more adjoining county property tax appraisal districts, if they so choose, to consolidate appraisal review board functions. This will expand the pool of qualified people to serve on appraisal boards which could reduce the costs of litigation for both appraisal districts and taxpayers, saving taxpayer money. The voluntary ability to consolidate smaller county appraisal review boards will help resolve property tax appraisal protests more quickly and make protesting appraisals more convenient for property owners, especially in lesser-populated areas of Texas.

Proposition 6

The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized.

Summary: This amendment would authorize the VLB to provide for, issue, and sell general obligation bonds of the state for the purpose of selling land to Texas veterans or providing them home or land mortgage loans. The proposed amendment would remove the $500 million cap on the principal amount of bonds outstanding at any one time and instead require that the principal amount of outstanding VLB bonds provided, issued, or sold for those purposes at all times be equal to or less than the aggregate principal amount of state general obligation bonds previously authorized for those purposes by prior constitutional amendments.

Recommendation: Support. This will help to ensure that the VLB can continue to provide financial assistance to veterans who have served our state and nation. Additionally, no fiscal impact to the state is anticipated. (Note: Although veterans participating in the existing loan program have always made good on their payments, and have thus never left the taxpayers on the hook, the taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the bonds issued.)

Proposition 7

The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.

Summary: This amendment would exempt officers and enlisted members of the Texas State Guard and any other active militia or military force organized under Texas law from the prohibition against holding or exercising more than one civil office of emolument at the same time.

Recommendation: Support. This would correct the oversight of not including the Texas State Guard and other Texas military forces in the list of offices that civil officials can hold while holding another office.

Proposition 8

The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state.

Summary: This amendment would authorize the state to contribute money, property, and other resources to establish, maintain, and operate veterans hospitals.

Recommendation: Oppose. This is intended to improve access to medical care for Texas veterans, but it will allow the legislature to spend state taxpayer dollars on what should be a federal issue.

Proposition 9

The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.

Summary: This amendment would establish that the public has an unrestricted right to access and use a public beach. "Public beach" would mean a state-owned beach bordering on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico, extending from mean low tide to the landward boundary of state-owned submerged land to which the public has acquired a right of use or easement by prescription or dedication or has established and retained a right by virtue of continuous right in the public under Texas common law. The proposed amendment also would authorize the legislature to enact laws to protect that right and to protect the public beach easement from interference and encroachments. In addition, it would establish that its provisions do not create a private right of enforcement.

Recommendation: Oppose. Possible infringement on property rights. Although, it is important to maintain open access to public beaches, recent action by state officials has indicated a willingness to use a well intentioned law to unnecessarily seize private property.

Proposition 10

The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.

Summary:. This amendment would authorize the legislature to provide that members of the governing board of an emergency services district may serve terms not to exceed four years, instead of the previous term limit of two years.

Recommendation: Support. Extending the limit of emergency service district boards from two to four years would allow the board members to be more experienced, stable, and effective.

Proposition 11

The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.

Summary: This amendment would specify that the term "public use" does not include the taking of property for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues. Effective January 1, 2010, the proposed amendment would limit the legislature's ability to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity by requiring the grant to be approved by two-thirds of all the members elected to each house.

Recommendation: Support. This will more narrowly define the term "public use" which will strengthen the protection of private property rights while still allowing for the most necessary uses of eminent domain.

Early Voting Oct 19 - Oct 30 - Travis County Locations

CENTRAL / CENTRAL
Travis County Airport Blvd Offices
5501 Airport Boulevard
Mon–Sat 7 am–7 pm, Sun Noon–6 pm
Lunes–Sab 7 am–7 pm, Dom Mediodía–6 pm

Fiesta Mart Central
3909 North IH-35 @ Delwood Shopping Center
Mon–Sat 7 am–7 pm, Sun Noon–6 pm
Lunes–Sab 7 am–7 pm, Dom Mediodía–6 pm

NORTH / NORTE
Ben Hur Shriners Hall
7811 Rockwood Lane
Mon–Sat 7 am–7 pm, Sun Noon–6 pm
Lunes–Sab 7 am–7 pm, Dom Mediodía–6 pm

NORTHEAST / NORESTE
County Tax Office, Pflugerville
(Community Room)
15822 Foothill Farms Loop
Mon–Sat 7 am–7 pm, Sun Noon–6 pm
Lunes–Sab 7 am–7 pm, Dom Mediodía–6 pm

NORTHWEST / NOROESTE
Randalls Research and Braker
10900-D Research Boulevard @ Braker Lane
Mon–Sat 7 am–7 pm, Sun Noon–6 pm
Lunes–Sab 7 am–7 pm, Dom Mediodía–6 pm

SOUTH / SUR
Randalls Ben White and Manchaca
2025 West Ben White Boulevard @
Manchaca Road
Mon–Sat 7 am–7 pm, Sun Noon–6 pm
Lunes–Sab 7 am–7 pm, Dom Mediodía–6 pm

SOUTHEAST / SURESTE
Dan Ruiz Public Library
1600 Grove Boulevard
Mon–Thur 10 am–7 pm, Fri Closed,
Sat 10 am–5 pm, Sun Closed
Lunes–Jueves 10 am–7 pm, Viernes cerrado,
Sab 10 am–5 pm, Dom cerrado

SOUTHWEST / SUROESTE
Randalls South Mopac and William Cannon
6600 South Mopac @ William Cannon
Mon–Sat 7 am –7 pm, Sun Noon–6 pm
Lunes–Sab 7 am–7 pm, Dom Mediodía–6 pm

EAST / ESTE
Parque Zaragoza Recreation Center
2608 Gonzales Street @ East 7th
Mon–Fri 10 am–7 pm, Sat 10 am–5 pm,
Sun Closed
Lunes–Viernes 10 am–7 pm, Sab 10 am–5 pm,
Dom cerrado

Carver Library**
1161 Angelina Street
Mon–Fri 10 am – 6 pm, Sat 10 am–4:30 pm,
Sun 2 pm–5:30 pm
Lunes–Viernes 10 am–6 pm,
Sab 10 am–4:30 pm,
Dom 2 pm–5:30 pm
**Voting on Friday will be next door in the Carver Museum.
**La votación en los viernes será enseguida, en Carver Museum.

WEST / OESTE
Flagship Randalls at Westlake Hills
3300 Bee Caves Road
Mon–Sat 7 am–7 pm, Sun Noon–6 pm
Lunes–Sab 7 am–7 pm, Dom Mediodía–6 pm

Randalls Lakeway
2301 RR 620 South
Mon–Sat 7 am–7 pm, Sun Noon–6 pm
Lunes–Sab 7 am–7 pm, Dom Mediodía–6 pm

Heritage Alliance recommendations on amendments

Heritage Alliance has made their recommendations on the constitutional amendments.

Check them out in detail here.

In brief:

FOR: 2, 5, 6, 7, 11

AGAINST: 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10

Suicide blast in Iran kills 49

Gateway Pundit has the full story.

A republic, if we can keep it

I just told my husband that while I'm interested in the outcome of the UT/OU game (HOOK 'EM), I'm more immediately interested in the fact that, if Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein and their ilk had their way, there wouldn't be a difference between Oklahoma and Texas. You see, I just got through reading Josh Patashnik's "In Defense of States" over at The New Republic and I feel deeply unsettled.

Perhaps it is the effect of education - every fiber of my being rebels against the idea that the states are nothing but merely outdated, quaint political subdivisions. That political notion is entirely separate from the American Tradition. It shows an utter disregard for the principles that shaped the founding, and honestly I believe it shows historical ignorance (further proof that our public school system is failing students? You be the judge).

I have always believed that the government closest to one is the best form. A monolithic federal government that does not have checks and balances (there is more to that concept than simply the divisions at the federal level) is necessarily totalitarian. And how does such a government function, in a nation this size? Through unelected bureaucracies appointed to enforce federal mandate?

It isn't just that the needs of Virginia are going to differ from the needs of Arizona. It is that the states - individual colonies, at one point, even independent republics at other points - entered into a contract when they ratified the Constitution and were admitted into the Union. Said contract would need complete, revolutionary revision before we could think about dissolving the states. I would love to get a flat-out admission from the likes of Yglesias and Klein that they aren't really against the concept of states, but against the Constitution, period.

This sounds radical, I know. I can't really help it. The fact that this conversation is happening at all should strike a very sour chord with Americans. It isn't a new conversation, by any means - it no doubt predates our current political climate by more than 225 years. It also seems that this conversation has arisen from the current debate over states' rights.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm in favor of states' rights. I know that term is fraught with problems, as it has been used for nefarious purposes. That does not mean that there is not merit in the idea - the states are closer to the people. I believe, too, that the closer a government is to the people, the more likely it is to be held in check, the more likely it is transparent, the less likely it could turn tyrannic or totalitarian in nature. I believe that we have bigger concerns than those in Congress - we have a city council, a county commissioners' court, a state legislature that need to be held in check, because it is those governments whose actions most directly affect our day-to-day lives. And it was intended to be this way, and it was a good way.

The federal government's role is not to dictate our daily existence. It is to act as protector of God-given rights, to physically defend the Union from foreign attack and invasion, and to foster/protect interstate commerce and cooperation.

Another issue brought up in the TNR article is the idea of state identification. Being a Texan, I have an admittedly skewed view here. It is noticeable, when visiting some other states, that there is less pride and identification with the state in question. In Texas, well - our flag flies at the same height as the U.S. flag (whether legal or not, that's how it is flown). I don't think I need to go further.

A republic. If we can keep it. That was what the founders (no monolithic group themselves) set out to create and what we have endeavored to keep. It has been battered and bruised before, but no threat has been more insidious than the most recent one to utterly redefine the relationship the federal government should have with the states - which, again, not new, but certainly louder and more thoroughly canvassed than it has been in a generation or more.

Definitely, definitely check out Patashnik's "In Defense of States."

HD 48 primary grows

The Statesman (and Capitol Inside) is reporting that Dan Neil, former University of Texas offensive lineman and Super Bowl-winning Denver Bronco, is throwing his hat into the ring to challenge State Rep. Donna Howard in HD 48.

He filed treasurer paperwork with the Texas Ethics Commission on Oct. 7.

Neil is also on the board for GOPAC-TX, an effort among conservative Republican House members to raise money for House races.

Neil joins Austin businessman Glenn Bass in the Republican primary.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility recommendations for constitutional amendments

The complete list with explanations is here.

In brief:

YES: Props 2, 3, 5, 7, and 11

NO: Props 1, 4, and 8

NEUTRAL: Props 6 and 10

Bizarre position of the day: Denying trauma care to female vets

So UrbanGrounds has a post up about a small-business owner in Taylor who is blatantly opposed to the creation of a trauma assistance center for female veterans being operated in her town.

My reaction to this? Lady, you are so very wrong about this.

We need to care for our veterans in this country. In this case, a private company is looking to come into Taylor (an area that, if I recall, isn't exactly a booming economic center even in good times) to convert a building that isn't being used into a facility designed to assist veterans, some of whom have been sexually assaulted.

Okay, I'm just going to stop and relay an anecdote. My mother is a disabled veteran. She served in the Navy during the Vietnam War and the Cold War. She isn't one of the women who would benefit from the kind of center that is being proposed in Taylor - but she might have been, back then. I have two female cousins serving in the Navy now. I know countless other women who are serving in the armed forces. And countless men doing the same.

It is unconscionable that these people should be denied care. Period.

I won't even get into the sexual politics at play in saying that victims of sexual assault are somehow dangerous to society. That is a ludicrous assumption if there ever was one.

Ridiculous.

An argument in favor of Prop 11

The ballot language for Prop. 11 reads:

"The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."

That is a big ol' mess of words to basically say that Prop. 11, if passed, would define "public use" for the purposes of eminent domain in the Texas constitution.

There is a lot of debate happening with regards to this amendment at present. It isn't divided on ideological lines, either. Some think it doesn't go far enough, some think it goes too far, some are worried that if this doesn't pass, the legislature will continue to fail to do anything to oppose the Kelo decision and Texans will be unprotected.

I fall under that last category.

This amendment is before the voters of Texas by sheer force of will. Initially, the Senate wasn't going to have a chance to vote on it. Tweaks and changes were made, and it squeaked out. There are plenty of reasons to believe that, if Prop. 11 fails, eminent domain reform could be shut down for awhile. Yes, it is a campaign-winning issue. The people support reform. But the legislature only has polls for proof, and should Prop. 11 fail, it could be taken as a sign that eminent domain reform is not a pressing enough issue for legislators to fight for during session (especially in 2011, a year with many other pressing concerns).

Prop. 11 would stop eminent domain for the purposes of economic development and tax base expansion. Is it perfect, then? No. I think it's legitimate to worry about the possible broad determination of "public enjoyment." The problem is that this hasn't been addressed in any other way, and the courts cite only bad precedent and rarely intent when determining things like the Kelo decision. We can't count on the courts to take care of this, and a constitutional amendment is the only immediate action Texans can take in their own defense.

The amendment also states that the creation of any new eminent domain authority (local governments, corporations, etc.) must be passed by a 2/3 supermajority in the legislature. Currently, only a simple majority is required, like regular legislation.

A major benefit for low-income areas in particular in Prop. 11 is the statement about blighted property. Local governments would only be able to declare properties blighted on an individual basis - one-by-one, instead of by entire city blocks. This process would protect individual property rights in cases where people may not have the means to defend themselves otherwise. "Blight" is not yet well-defined, but passage of this amendment will encourage the legislature to address the issue directly.

I encourage you to find out where your local government officials stand on this amendment. I think their answers will be very telling. While no official statement on this amendment has come from the Texas Municipal League (TML) or the Texas Association of Counties (TAC), neither organization has been in favor of limiting eminent domain authority. In fact, both groups have consistently argued against such an idea. TML filed an amicus curae brief in the Kelo case (their official stance was: "The Kelo decision is good for Texas cities... It simply confirms what cities have known all along: under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, economic development can be as much a 'public use' as a road, bridge, or water tower") and their stated legislative priorities include outright opposition to measures that "erode the authority of cities to condemn property for a public purpose."

TAC's most recent newsletter (County Issues) cites the fear of increased litigation costs for local governments if Prop 11 should pass - which is another way of saying that local governments could fight over the definition of "public use" in Prop 11 through the courts.

Proposition 11 is a sound step for Texas. We need to define public use in the state constitution to take away such overarching authority on the part of local governments and other entities with eminent domain authority. Until we start narrowing the definition, we're left at the mercy of the unconstitutional Kelo decision indefinitely.

KBH on Mark Davis show

Via Aman Batheja at the FWST's Poli-Tex blog (emphasis mine):

[Mark] Davis asked if [Senator Hutchison] might stay in her seat until the end of the year.

"I can’t say anything right now because I don’t know," Hutchison said. "Every day in Washington, some new bad thing is coming up."

Davis pushed further, asking if she might stay in the Senate through next year's March primary.

"Well, a lot of people are suggesting that," Hutchison said. "That’s not what I want to do. That’s not what I intend to do but... right now I want to just see what comes next. ..."

Well, she did at least admit that she knows a lot of people are waiting to see what she's going to do.

This is another side-step and not really an answer, which is something I think we're all pretty used to by now. It doesn't sound at all like Senator Hutchison has made a decision, and it sounds too like it's been complicated by the absolute travesty that is Congress at the moment.

Hutchison's interview today did one thing - it settled the question of whether we'll have an answer soon. The answer is clearly that no one knows.

What is "Texans for Tier One"?

Going through the Texas Ethics Commission filing for the "Texans for Tier One" PAC, one can learn quite a bit about the so-called "overwhelming support" for Proposition 4. $100,000 was loaned to the PAC - by it's principal contributor, William P. Hobby of Houston.

The point is this: there is a PAC out there supporting Proposition 4, with a lot of money but few contributors, based in the city that stands to benefit outright from what Prop 4 does.

Let's be clear. The Higher Education Fund that exists now can benefit 26 public universities in Texas that don't benefit from the PUF (that'd be University of Texas and Texas A&M). If Prop. 4 passes, the fund will change purposes, and the money there will be used specifically to fund specially designated Tier One schools that aren't UT or Texas A&M - in the foreseeable future, that's just 7 universities. In the end, this won't benefit anyone except the faculties and adminstrators of schools that wish to change their focus from education to research.

Schools that, traditionally, were meant for the Texans who could not afford the grand palaces in Austin and College Station. Schools that traditionally give post-secondary education to the increasing number of students priced out of attending the bigger schools, but that are now "competing" to raise their costs in the name of competition with those schools.

Supporters of Proposition 4, if we go by what we see in Texans for Tier One, are people with a lot of money who probably aren't concerned with the rising cost of tuition. Instead of entering into the spirit of true competition - raising standards without raising costs beyond affordability - they are distracting parents and other voters with dazzling promises. They aren't interested in the quality of higher education for all students. They are only interested in the bottom line.

Don't be fooled by the claims of "overwhelming support" and don't let the promises of research cathedrals distract you from the facts. Proposition 4 is a damaging and costly mistake waiting to happen. Vote NO on 4.

Vote YES on Props 2 and 3

There has been a lot of misleading information going around via email on Props 2 and 3, which deal with property taxes, and that information is extremely damaging to the efforts to fix our property appraisal system in the state of Texas.

Prop 2 states "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property’s value as a residence homestead."

What this means, in layman's terms, is that appraisal districts will be required to appraise your home as a home. Right now, people who live near booming commercial developments, like the Domain area in north Austin, are experiencing unaccountable hikes in their appraised values. This is because appraisers are valuing homes in places like this based partly on the idea that one day, the land will be worth something to commercial developers. Prop. 2 would keep them from that kind of unwarranted speculation, and require that homes be appraised as is. I strongly support Prop 2.

Prop 3 states "The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes."

Right now, property appraisal standards differ from district to district. This means that in one county, appraisers may just do an annual "drive-by" of your home and use neighborhood sales prices to determine the approximate value of your home for taxing purposes. In another county, they may skip the drive-by and use old records of repair and sales costs to determine value. There are numerous problems with the system as it stands - because there is no system. In a lot of rural districts, incoming appraisers and appraisal board members receive no training at all, and have to make it up as they go along.

Prop 3 would not require a uniform system outright - it simply gives the legislature the ability to prescribe the manner of the enforcement of uniform appraisal standards and procedures. Given that the state funds schools through local property taxes, and the local property appraisals determine that tax, there needs to be some kind of oversight to ensure fairness and equitable determination. Please vote YES on Prop 3.

Not For 4 video released

Young Conservatives of Texas released this video today, on their stated opposition to Prop 4:

Not too early to think about May elections

Non-partisan offices, such as school district board, city council, M.U.D. board and others, are typically elected in Travis County on the May uniform election date.

I'm working on a list of which offices are up for election in May 2010. If you have information about these, please let me know (comments are fine). This is a list of what I have compiled so far, including names of incumbents.

Austin Independent School District – Single Member Districts, 2 at-large members
Place 1 – Cheryl Bradley
Place 4 – Vincent Torres
Place 6 – Lori Moya
Place 7 – Robert Schneider
Place 9 (at-large) – Karen Dulaney-Smith

Coupland Independent School District - ??
??

Del Valle Independent School District – Single Member Districts, 3-year staggered terms
Place 1 – Dr. Dian Darby
Place 3 – Julia Hankerson Diggs
Place 9 – David L. Mellenbruch

Dripping Springs Independent School District – At-Large, 3-year staggered terms
Steve Benesh
Curtis Wilson

Eanes Independent School District – At-Large, 3-year staggered terms
Mike Monnig
Dr. James Kallison

Elgin Independent School District – Single-member districts, 3-year staggered terms
Place 4 – David Graham
Place 7 – Robert Mauck

Hays Consolidated Independent School District – Single-member districts, 3-year staggered terms
Place 4 – Ralph Pfluger
Place 5 – Robert DuPont

Johnson City Independent School District – At-large, 3-year staggered terms
??

Lago Vista Independent School District – At-large, 3-year staggered terms
Three seats up in 2010

Lake Travis Independent School District – At-Large, all places, rotating 3-year terms
Place 3 – Susan Tolles
Place 4 – Jason Buddin
Place 5 – Alan Williams

Leander Independent School District – At-Large, all places, alternating 3-year terms
Place 3 – Elizabeth Frey
Place 4 – Grace Barber Jordan
Place 5 – Russell Bundy

Manor Independent School District – At-Large, all places, alternating 3-year terms
??

Marble Falls Manor Independent School District – At-large, all places, staggered 3-year terms
Place 1 – Mike Savage
Place 2 – Karl Westerman


Pflugerville Independent School District – Single Member Districts (?), staggered 3-year terms
Place 3 – Paul King
Place 4 – Vernagene Mott
Place 5 – Carol Fletcher

Round Rock Independent School District – At-Large, all places, staggered 3-year terms
Place 4 – Linelle Clark-Brown
Place 5 – Sherry Johnson


City of Austin City Council – At-large, all places
No elections for Austin City Council in 2010

City of Bee Cave City Council – At-large, all places, 2-year staggered terms
??

City of Lakeway City Council – At-large, all places, 2-year staggered terms
Place - Dee Ann Burns
Place - Bruce Harris
Place - Dave Taylor


City of Manor City Council - ??
??

City of Marble Falls City Council – At-large, all places, 2-year staggered terms
Councilmember/Mayor Pro-Tem - Mike Pilley
Councilmember - Chris Bridges
Councilmember - Jim Weber

City of Pflugerville City Council – At-large, all places, 3-year staggered terms
Mayor – Jeff Coleman
Place 1 – Wayne Cooper

Process Story: KBH and the Great Unknowns

So. I promised I wouldn't blog on this again until we had an official announcement about resignation from Senator Hutchison, because there is just too much wild speculation and rumor to be worth reporting on. But given the number of questions I get, daily, about what will happen when and if she retires, I think it's important to post about what will happen - without speculating on who is going to run for what and when.

Especially as Jason Embry over at the Statesman has a great breakdown on some of the Great Unknowns.

1 - We have passed the deadline for KBH to resign from the Senate and trigger a special election this November.

2 - When the special election will be is totally dependent on when she resigns, and then what the governor decides to do.

3 - If she doesn't resign by Dec. 30, it could mean that whomever is appointed to replace her will be on the primary ballot for another office (i.e., Dewhurst files for reelection, and is then appointed senator before the primary date). State law prohibits primary candidates from pulling their names off the ballot after Dec. 30.

4 - If someone is appointed senator AND wins the Republican nomination for another office in the primary, the power of appointing that person's replacement falls to the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC). The list of SREC members is here (this group is in the news a lot lately, as they are also charged with choosing the new Republican Party of Texas chairman).

5 - We have no real idea of who will be appointed to what. We don't know who will file for what (December is still a month and a half away, after all). There is a lot that is simply unknown, and everything you're hearing is a rumor. My motto in times like these is trust no one. Until KBH ACTUALLY RESIGNS, we can know very little. But the second she does, expect a slew of announcements from Republicans (and Democrats - who have their own candidates to run).

Frankly, this whole thing is really distracting, like the best process stories always are. That's what makes it so frustrating, too, because it's the only thing a good many state-focused activists want to discuss. There are, literally, hundreds of other races down the ballot that should be concerning Republicans. As the grassroots, we're not able to control what's happening up at the top right now, but we have control over running and supporting candidates for local seats, judicial seats, the state legislature, even Congress. If we keep the farm team healthy, we'll have a lot less to worry about.

March 3 cannot get here fast enough.

Austin Energy CEO to retire

The Statesman is reporting that Austin Energy CEO Roger Duncan has announced his retirement.

Wonder just how much the "nationwide search" to replace Duncan is going to cost?

And, friendly reminder, Dr. Edwards with the Travis County Republican Party had an op-ed in today's paper about the failure of Austin's green energy initiative.

Texas Association of Business releases 2009 legislative scorecard

The full For the Record lawmaker scorecard can be found here. The Texas Association of Business scored legislators on their votes on a variety of issues, from mandatory pre-k to health insurance mandates, property tax reform to the study of state spending limits.

How did Travis County's delegation do? About how one might expect, really.

HD 46 - Dawnna Dukes - 45%
HD 47 - Valinda Bolton - 40%
HD 48 - Donna Howard -45%
HD 49 - Elliott Naishtat - 45%
HD 50 - Mark Strama - 55%
HD 51 - Eddie Rodriguez - 45%

SD 14 - Kirk Watson - 42%
SD 25 - Jeff Wentworth - 67%

Dr. Ronald Trowbridge: No on Prop 4

More and more opposition to Proposition 4 is being voiced today. Dr. Ronald Trowbridge, a former vice president of Hillsdale College and a research fellow for Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, gives his two cents and more here.

Prop 4: Harmful to education and a poor investment

Proposition 4, if passed, will create a fund with the purpose of increasing the number of Tier‐1 research universities in Texas. Texas voters should know the facts about Prop 4.

• University focus on research harms educational quality and increases tuition.

• The key to preparing the next generation of Texans for more productive and meaningful lives is not more investment in higher education research, but to return our colleges and universities to their original mission—educating students.
• Today, the majority of undergraduate classes in universities are taught by non‐tenure track faculty, graduate teaching assistants, or part time adjuncts. Tenured faculty spend 78% of their time on research related activities. This lack of focus on teaching harms student learning.
• In order to compensate for this lost time in the classroom, universities hire more staff. Hiring more staff impacts the budget in ways other than salary increases. With more staff comes more buildings, increased utilities, office supplies and thus, higher tuition for students.

• University research is a poor investment for Texas taxpayers and university customers.

• Ohio University economist Dr. Richard Vedder has conducted studies showing states that overinvest in higher education have a lower growth rate than states that do not. At best, there is no evidence of a correlation between state higher education spending and economic growth.
• Texas universities have spent about $9 billion on research that has generated a mere $8.3 million a year in income, a rate of return of less than one tenth of 1 percent. Had these funds instead been invested conservatively, earning 5% a year, the return would have been enough to provide a four‐year college degree to about 50,000 more Texans a year.
• When tenured faculty refer to “academic research,” they generally are referring not to work done in scientific laboratories, but esoteric scholarly articles written for obscure academic journals. Over two million of these articles are published each year, diverting tens of billions of taxpayer dollars that could be spent educating students.

• There is no need for the government to subsidize research.

• 87 percent of the research and development work in the United States is done by private companies and independent laboratories, not by universities. Profits and the drive to innovate in the market are a much better catalyst for sound and useful research than the self-promotion of academics.

Tony McDonald, Vice Chairman of Legislative Affairs, www.yct.org

Baucus bill includes a Mommy Tax, among others

The health care boondoggle going down in Congress just keeps getting worse. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air did a little digging through the FDA's listing of items that would be taxed under Senator Baucus' debacle of a bill.

Originally, the bill was going to include a tax on all medical items. Backlash stemming from Amanda Carpenter's exposure of this nonsense led Baucus to only tax Class II and up items costing over $100. Which includes:

• Mammograms
• Dental x-rays
• Hip, knee, ankle and breast prosthetics
• Dentures, both partial and full
• IUDs
• Sickle-cell anemia tests
• Dialysis catheters

and so on.

To say this is outrageous would be redundant, don't you think?

Let's review how this kind of taxation works, shall we? When a provider has to pay more upfront for supplies that they will use in treating patients, the cost has to be compensated for. Prices go up because taxes go up. Either the patient's private insurance will be burdened with the cost, which will mean everyone using that insurance company will feel the heat, and eventually the cost of private insurance will be too burdensome. Meaning, if such a thing is available, patients will turn to government insurance. Meaning all of us have to pick up the tab - in our taxes.

Vicious cycle. Vicious plan.

TCRP chairman Edwards on Austin Energy

Dr. Rosemary Edwards, chairman of the Travis County Republican Party, has an op-ed in today's Austin American-Statesman that you might find interesting.

From the op-ed:

Our leaders in Austin are pushing their own attempt to "save the world" with an aggressive energy plan to get 30 percent of our electricity from renewable energy by 2020. Mayor Lee Leffingwell has already issued an apology for the coming rate hikes needed to fund that plan. That apology will ring hollow when many families are unable to buy groceries or pay the electric bill because of increased taxes.

In short? Austin's green energy mania is costing taxpayers. It's possible that Austinites could see a 50% hike in their energy bills as soon as this winter.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation's David Guenthner discussed this issue in Environment and Climate News. He said, "It’s not surprising that the vast majority of customers have opted for traditional energy given that GreenChoice costs 60 percent more."

As some of the rare Austin residents with a choice in our energy supplier (living in a M.U.D., and not Austin proper), my husband and I have had to sit down and seriously consider switching companies. I doubt we'll go through the end of the year with Austin Energy, and it is directly because of the GreenChoice mandate. (note to the anti-energy-dereg crowd - this is why we need choice!)

Edwards says it best: "Those who are able to pay the additional costs involved will pay it if the cost is worth it. Forcing it on everyone will only increase taxes and drive people and businesses away from Austin."

Young Conservatives of Texas oppose Prop 4

Young Conservatives of Texas announced this morning that the group is opposing Proposition 4, the proposed Texas constitutional amendment that would create the National Research University Fund for tier 1 universities.

From the press release:

"Texas universities need to be reminded that the students are the customers, not the faculty. Texans would be much better off if research were handled by the private sector. Profits and the drive to innovate in the market are a much better catalyst for sound and useful research than the self-promotion of academics," asserts [Tony] McDonald [Vice Chairman of Legislative Affairs].

As of 2007, Texas universities spent about $9 billion on scientific research that has generated a mere $8.3 million a year in income, a rate of return of less than one-tenth of 1 percent (.09 percent). Research suggests that had these funds instead been invested conservatively, earning 5 percent a year, the return would have been enough to provide a four-year college degree to more than 50,000 additional Texans a year.

You can join the opposition on Facebook.

I wrote in detail about my opposition to Prop. 4 here. Dan McDonald of the Precinct 211 blog wrote about his opposition here.

Has political ideology finally gone too far?

Blue Dot Blues has passed the 800 post mark. I think I'll throw a party for post # 1000.

Meanwhile, before I hit the sack, I wanted to change the tone this evening just a bit with a link to this incredible post at The Anchoress concerning the "conservative Bible" movement. You'll need to check out her post for the full scoop, but essentially, there are movement conservatives who have decided that "modern" translations of the Bible are increasingly liberal in nature, and that a conservative version is needed to correct fallacies.

When I say "liberal" and "conservative" here, understand that I mean these as political terms. Political conservatives want a "politically correct" version of the Bible geared toward other political conservatives.

The Anchoress, and other bloggers like Rod Dreher and Ed Morrissey, rightly state that this project is "insane hubris." Morrissey states that this is really an act that makes God's word subservient to conservative ideology. I couldn't have said it better.

For awhile now, I've been concerned by what I perceive to be the use of religion to evangelize for political beliefs. The two should be separate - while your religious beliefs should inform your ideology, your ideology should not inform your religion. When the latter happens, as the Anchoress asserts, your ideology has become an idol.

It is impossible, I think, to not see similarities in the way we recruit in politics and the way we evangelize for Christ. I've often made statements that compare the two, especially to religious people who are new to the political process and need to be able to relate their activism to something familiar. But there is a danger in that, because so many on the right have traditionally been recruited from the evangelist rank and file. There is a separation between what God has us doing and what we do to further conservatism.

And certainly, our political activism should not come before our duty to the Lord.

Being a liberal is not the same as being a heathen bound for hell - neither is being a conservative a ticket through heaven's gate. The inverse applies as well. Liberalism is not a saving grace, and conservatism is not a damning trait. These things are of man, not God.

Definite food for thought. And a friendly reminder - no politicking on the Sabbath.

Exploring the link between sexual violence and teen pregnancy

There is an extremely interesting, and at the same time deeply unsettling, post at The Curvature about the Center for American Progress' paper on the link between sexual violence and teen pregnancy.

From the study:

Other research findings compare sexually abused pregnant teens to pregnant teens who have not suffered sexual abuse. The sexually abused girls initiated intercourse a year earlier than their peers and engaged in a wide variety of high-risk behaviors, including substance abuse. The average age of first intercourse for abused girls is 13.8, in contrast to the national average of 16.2. Only 28 percent of the abused girls used birth control at first intercourse, compared to 74 percent of girls in the general population.

A healthy caveat when reading things like this: use this as a basis for reexamining the way you think about things, not gospel truth. We all know the axiom about statistics. But I think it needs to be said, teenage sexual relationships are often completely unhealthy (morality is an issue we can discuss elsewhere). Coercion is often a factor. Peer pressure. Too many teenage girls are simply not ready to say "yes" - but they do because they haven't learned how to say "no." They say yes because everyone else is. The study is suggesting, too, that sexual abuse in these cases wasn't confined to those relationships. It could have happened earlier in life, or at the hands of older men (or women) at any stage.

Also, sexual abuse is not necessarily forced or coerced intercourse. There are other acts that fit that definition. So the stats quoted above make more complete sense when that is considered.

Sorry to go so gloomy here, but this really touched a nerve. There obviously must be many factors that contribute to high teen pregnancy rates - it makes sense that one of those factors could be sexual abuse. The term is broadly defined, but impossible to ignore.

Why You Should Vote NO on Prop 4

(Attention readers: this post refers to the November 2009 election. For information on ballot propositions on the March 2 Republican primary ballot, please click here)

-----original post on Nov 2009 Texas Constitutional Amendment Ballot-----

I've held back on this because I wanted to give readers a chance to read the initial analysis of Proposition 4. There are a lot of arguments out there in favor of it (the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has their endorsement here). I think you need to know, Prop. 4 is a bad idea.

One of the "elephant in the room" problems in Texas is higher education funding. The legislature "deregulated" tuition in 2003 to help balance the budget, and since then, Texas' public universities have become less affordable for many, if not most, Texas families. The Texas Tomorrow Fund has ceased to exist as a direct result of tuition dereg, and the Texas Tuition Promise Fund will eventually collapse as well. Since tuition deregulation, tuition has skyrocketed, increasing by an average of 86% since 2003 (and there's a great breakdown of where that money has gone, at least in the case of UT-Austin, here). The result of all of this is a higher demand for financial aid, most of which is backed by state or federal tax dollars. Meanwhile, the university systems pay lobbyists to head to Austin and Washington to beg for more money.

Now, the "Tier 2" schools in Texas (specifically UT-Arlington, UT-Dallas, the University of North Texas, the University of Houston (home of the tuition funds scandal I discussed in May), Texas Tech, UT-El Paso and UT-San Antonio) want to receive special funding to attract federal research grants for their professors.

At the expense, of course, of classroom education.

Proponents of Prop 4 like to talk about how many "Tier 1" research universities there are in California (11) and New York (8) as opposed to Texas (3 - UT, Texas A&M, and Rice). What they don't tell you is that the graduates of those schools in California and New York come to Texas - because we have an excellent business climate (have you seen the list of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Texas? We have more than New York).

Tier 1 university is not a term that means "higher enrollment rate" or "higher graduation rate." It does not mean affordable tuition. UT, A&M, and Rice are three of the most expensive schools in the state. UT and A&M are certainly the most expensive public schools in Texas. Time was, a student who was smart enough for those schools but who couldn't afford or didn't want to go into debt to attend them went to one of the listed "Tier 2" schools. There used to be something approaching legitimate competition. Becoming more "prestigious" research campuses might be the perfect excuse to continue raising tuition. After all, you're getting a better education from a Tier 1 school, right?

Wrong. It isn't about education - it's about marketing. What is your university known for, and how easily do prospective employers recognize your alma mater? That's where these Tier 2 schools are rooting their argument for more money (Texas Tech in particular, if the Star-Telegram's statement about Sen. Duncan is to be believed). Nothing is there to stop them from raising tuition at the same time - in fact, some use "being competitive" as an excuse to raise tuition, like UT-Arlington's student body president argues in this 2008 article, or like the Texas Tech student leadership approved of earlier this year.

And tuition hikes are vicious things. Higher tuition cost = higher demand for financial aid = higher taxes to pay for federal loans, federal grants, etc. It isn't just tuition, either - universities like "Tier 2" and Prop 4 beneficiary UT-Arlington get around tuition caps and other such accountability measures with increases in student fees. The point is, the more it costs to get a post-secondary education, the more the government is going to step in to subsidize it.

The really insidious thing about Prop. 4 is that it creates a whole new constitutional fund, but doesn't create a mechanism for sunset. Which means the initial money will eventually run out, and the universities will come back and ask for more. The people of Texas have one chance to vote on this: now. If this is approved, the legislature will have to address reauthorizing funds down the road - and we all know that the university lobby will make sure this is funded in perpetuity, with YOUR tax dollars.

The Star-Telegram says "the money is available. We should use it." That is a rotten argument. The money is available now, sure. But what about after 2011? What about in 2031? When government spends money one time, it rarely (read: NEVER) stops spending.

Make no mistake - until we address university funding and accountability, no time will be a good time to create new funds. We need to say NO to Prop. 4.