Government by Lawsuit Gives Cover to Texas Lawmakers
Judges have been telling legislators what to do since we set up government to replace knife fights and bar brawls. It’s a logical way to get things done: elect people to represent you, and set up a system of redress to keep them in check.
Simple enough.
The current school finance system was devised by lawmakers in the face of a legal threat. So was its predecessor, and that one’s predecessor. When lawmakers won’t spend the money or make the necessary cuts to keep things constitutional, the courts demand remedies.
Government by lawsuit in Texas bloomed in ...
Comments (8)
hans5162@ix.netcom.com hans
Throw out every last one of the discredited tea party whack-jobs. They're all more scared of Michael Quinn Sullivan. Anyone who signs any pledge other than their oath of office should be ineligible for public office. As soon as they do that, they are beholden to outside interests and have compromised their ability to represent their constituents. The biggest item that should disqualify someone from serving is the pledge from Americans for Tax Reform. More than anyone else, ATR and Grover Norquist are responsible for the train wreck that is Congress and the 70 car pile-up that is the Texas Legislature.
Kimberly Burkett via Texas Tribune on Facebook
How much are these lawsuits costing taxpayers just so "fiscal conservatives" can claim they upheld their juvenile pledge? I would think this is a stupid charade even the tea party faithful can see through. How's this for a novel idea - grow a pair and do your job, legislators.
Kathi Thomas via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Exactly! Why can't they just have the backbone to do the right thing in the first place?
Pat Herndon
If the proported process in this article and by McCown is a functional reality in Texas politics, then why the hell did experienced incumbent legislators, particularly in public educational finance, including Dems with seniority, create, offer and continue to support Prop 6, an constitutional amendment to the Texas constitution? Its a short term money shuffle shell game to hide a major structural flaw in public educational financing in Texas,..............but its a constitutional proposal that may well become (permanent) constitutional law in Texas, thus shielding it from judicial correction by state courts.
Fernando Perez via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Let da Finger pointing begin....
WUSRPH
Over a period of many years the late Craig Foster, founder of the Equity Center which has led the fight for school finance reform and equity in Texas over the last several decades, and I debated whether the solution to the school funding problems would come from the Courts or the Legislature. I, being a creature of the Legislature, argued that, with the proper leadership the Legislature COULD stand up and do what it knew was required. It had shown that, I claimed, by what it did in 1984 with the passage of HB 72 and the so-called “Bullock funding formulas” included within that bill which even Foster admitted could have resolved the issue. However, Foster was always able to quickly point out that HB 72 had failed to meet that goal because the Legislatures that followed it passage refused to face up to the actual cost of producing equity and a quality education for all the school children of Texas. In fact, he would note, in the years that followed the only time the Legislature actually made a positive move in that direction was when it had the foot of a judge on its neck forcing it to do so. I tried to retain my optimism that the Legislature could do it with proper leadership, but, the sad fact is that that kind of leadership has not been forthcoming…As such, I now admit that Craig was right…The Legislature can not and will not do what it knows must be done unless it is forced to do so.
Pat Herndon
WUSRHP: My own familiarity with the Texas legislature goes back to the late 60's. So, I was around when Dubya and Bullock passed a constitutional amendment that has significantly limited the ability to address the structural problems with public education finance in Texas. HB 72 was not a constitutional amendment. Hockbergs compromise bill went through special session only to fall because of one absent vote in the House, so the Governor never had to sign it or veto it, ending the blame transfer to the legislature by the Governor. I'm not discounting the concept of leadership in the Legislature, and complain about it loudly and often, for decades. Nor am I discounting the effect of having cover by a court, or a courts foot on the neck to provide impetus to "leadership". The media has it that prop 6 is simply a budget shell game over $300 million in stim money carved out of the next budget. If that's so, why make a constitutional amendment? As I said, what state court can declare a voted up constitutional amendment unconstitutional? It seems to me that this is a tangential distraction that may impede future statutory budget legislation, or even constitutional actions regarding public school finance, as well as deter any other court actions. More failing about!
WUSRPH
Pat:
I found your comments very interesting…My involvement with the Legislature does not go as far back as yours. My full-time involvement began in 1971 and I worked in and around the Legislature until the fall of 2005. I assume you are referring to Bullock’s constitutional amendment banning an income tax without approval by the voters. One clarification on that---you can blame George W. for many things…but not for this amendment…In fact, it was adopted at the November 1993 election while Ann Richards was still the governor. Also, it was not originally intended to become the barrier to an income tax that it eventually became. In fact, when he first started talking about it, Bullock would have linked the passage of the amendment to the passage (at the same time) of an income tax bill by the Legislature which, as the language of the constitutional amendment provides, dedicated the revenue from the income tax to public education and to the reduction of local property taxes. The two were to go arm-in-arm. I can not say exactly why Bullock abandoned that plan and pushed the constitutional amendment as a separate measure without an implementing bill that would have dedicated the revenue, etc. I can only speculate that because there was so much opposition when he first suggested an income tax in 1991 he let this business-oriented paid political consultants convince him that he was in danger of being defeated for re-election in 1994 UNLESS he did something against an income tax…The fact he listened to such crap and abandoned his principled stand on the issue has always been the source of my greatest disappointment with Bullock. He did many good things for Texas but only time will tell whether the good he did was outweighed by this act of fear.