Enlarge

General and primary election turnout in Texas since 1970 as a percentage of the voting age population

The story through the primaries and runoffs? It's over for most of the races — only a few remain competitive. Turnover, as you would expect in the election after a redistricting, is high.

So far, the state is losing two of its statewide officials (U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina, both Republicans), three members of Congress, five state senators and 40 members of the House. Some quit, some got fired and some ran for other offices.

Enlarge 

.

Five statewide candidates, all of them Republicans, have no major party opposition. In congressional races, one Democrat and four Republicans have no major party opponents. The numbers are the same in the 15 State Board of Education races — one Democrat and four Republicans with no MPOs. In the state Senate, 15 candidates — three Democrats and 12 Republicans — are coasting. In the Texas House, 98 candidates don't have MPOs, including 34 Democrats and 64 Republicans.

Take a run at the spreadsheets on the races to sort by swing district, by competitive climate and so on. By the numbers (and the numbers aren't always the best way to figure these things), voters could go either way in one or two congressional races, in a couple of SBOE contests, in one to three Senate races, and in 12 or 13 House races. That's just the start of the argument, of course, and some candidates will make competitive races boring and noncompetitive ones dramatic.

Turnout has been weak, if participation is your measure. Historically, it's on par with past elections (excepting the 2008 primaries, driven to a frenzy by a presidential contest that actually made it all the way to Texas while the competition was still underway).

Enlarge

This week on the Newsreel, check out our guide to upcoming Texas political races. And, with the runoffs out of the way, lawmakers start talking about the session ahead — and the state budget.

You can view the video at: https://trib.it/ONIvf3

Enlarge Graphic by Todd Wiseman

Three-quarters of juvenile justice departments in Texas said their funding is "insufficient" or "very insufficient" in a survey released this week by the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, a group that advocates for juvenile justice reform.

Instead of continuing to spend millions on large, problem-plagued secure facilities operated by the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, Benet Magnuson, a policy attorney with the group, said legislators should invest more money in county juvenile probation departments.

“If the state doesn’t do it, nobody else will, and we know these county departments are doing really impressive things with the funding they do receive,” Magnuson said.

State Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Plano, chairman of the House Corrections Committee, though, was skeptical of TCJC’s survey.

“What a shock that departments would say they need more money,” he said sarcastically.

Since reports in 2007 of awful physical and sexual abuse of juveniles in state custody, Texas lawmakers have worked to reform the juvenile justice system. The state implemented policies that kept more juveniles in their home communities, where they could be closer to services and to support systems they need once they finish their sentences. The reforms reduced the population to about 1,200 from about 3,000 in 2007, and the state closed eight of its 14 institutions.

In recent months, though, reports have revealed violence among youths in secure state facilities has spiked in the wake of the reforms. With only felony offenders now being sent to the facilities, the rate of assaults among youths and assaults by youths on staff have increased. Lawmakers and agency officials are working to improve security and safety.

Madden said instead of demanding more money for local probation programs, advocates should focus on recommendations for making the facilities safer and identifying more that can be shuttered. 

“It would strike me as wise if we look at least the reduction of one facility. That would open up some more money,” Madden said.

Douglas Vance, executive director at Brazos County juvenile probation department, said that like the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, local agencies are dealing with an increasingly difficult population of young people. More youths with mental health issues and other serious problems are now staying in the community instead of being sent to secure facilities. That means local probation departments must provide more services than they once did.

Probation departments run on a combination of funds from the county and state, generally. While money from the state increased when counties were asked to keep more youth offenders instead of sending them to secure facilities, Vance said the additional funds weren’t sufficient to cover the cost of treating a more difficult population.

He said probation departments would ask legislator for additional funding during the legislative session. 

“Give us the money. We can do a good job with it,” Vance said. “I think that’s been proven over and over again.” 

Enlarge

We turned (a little) away from the elections this week and to the business of actually governing the state, asking the insiders about how the Senate will run now that voters have made most of their decisions there and about whether and how lawmakers ought to disclose information about their personal finances.

A majority of the insiders think the changes wrought by the elections will change the way the Senate does its business. There are five new members already — all Republicans — and at least one real race for an incumbent Democrat still ahead in November. And the gentleman presiding over it all, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, is just back from getting walloped in the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate. The insiders see change ahead.

They don't expect changes to a key rule — the one that requires two-thirds of the senators to agree before something can come up for a vote. That so-called two-thirds rule allows a minority in the Senate to block legislation (most of the time). And most of the insiders think it's a good deal; 89 percent say the Senate should keep it in place.

Seven of ten insiders think lawmakers ought to disclose information about their income and investments, and 43 percent say the current disclosures required by law are disclosure enough. Another 48 percent say current disclosures aren't adequate.

We collected verbatim comments along the way and have attached the full set. A sampling of those, along with the full results to the poll questions, follows.

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

With David Dewhurst returning for another session as lieutenant governor and with a handful of new Republican members, do you expect the Senate to operate as it has in the past?

• "As long as the 2/3rds rule is in effect, the Senate will operate as it has for decades. Dan Patrick et al. need someone in addition to Wendy Davis to lose."

• "Even though there will be a number of new senators this session, it would be surprising to see the Senate altering the rules to such an extent that it changes the way it does business. However, there may be more contentious issues to be taken up, and if Gov. Dewhurst has aspirations of running again for this or another office, he may feel compelled to assist those who tried to paint him as a moderate."

• "I foresee a serious challenge to the Senate's rules that will fail. The tradeoff will be vastly different committee assignments and more social issues coming to the floor."

• "Dewhurst stays tuned to the weather channel. So in some ways that is the way he has always operated."

• "The Senate has just about had it with Dewhurst - expect a renewed sense of displeasure. The recent excitement with the prospect of his departure and the chain of events that would have triggered can only now be matched with the enthusiasm by which the remaining bit of hot air pouring from his campaign balloon provides." • "But with the usual right of the Lt. Governor to move items along due to TEA party pressure"

• "Your question assumes that Dewhurst will return this session as Lt. Governor. In the event that he does, which is not assured, you could very well see the establishment of a Senate Majority Leader."

• "Depends on Wendy Davis being reelected and if the two thirds rule survives"

• "There is simply no way the Senate can operate as it has. Dewhurst, like Straus, does not know how to control the floor and has few lieutenants on which to rely for help when things get sticky."

• "Losing = weakness = change"

• "There will be increased pressure to run the Senate on a partisan basis."

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

Should the Senate keep its 2/3rds rule?

• "Absolutely. This is the only guaranteed moderating factor. Witness voter id results from last session when senate went to committee of the whole."

• "The State of Texas, the Texas Senate and its traditions are much bigger than the tea party or any other movement. The Senate should not pass knee-jerk legislation, like the House. This rule is designed for cooler heads to prevail and for problems to be solved. No one wants legislation shoved down their pie hole. The pendulum will swing the other way soon, so be careful what you wish for..."

• "It's the only thing protecting the smart people from bad votes."

• "Kills more bad ideas than good ones."

• "It's not remotely democratic, with a small "d.""

• "They only keep the rule when they feel like it anyway. What's the point of pretending?"

• "By putting every Senator on the "calendar committee," it makes each one relevant on each issue. That is a tradition on which they should not want to turn their backs."

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

Should politicians disclose their incomes, investments and other personal finance information?

• "We've operated this long without knowing of conflicts of interest and personal stakes, so why change it?"

• "Yes, but we shouldn't be shocked that someone can serve for $7200 a year but still build wealth while serving."

• "We are long past due for an ethics scandal."

• "Given the fact that in recent years members have done everything from pimp red light cameras in exchange for a Mercedes (Paging Linda Harper Brown) to pass bills to protect their beach homes (Exit stage right, Mr. Christian), a little transparency might not be such a bad thing."

• "As long as they remain a part-time legislature NO"

• "But this does not meant that members of the Legislature should disclose their personal income tax returns. Unlike members of Congress, legislators cannot amend the Internal Revenue Code to make or break tax exemptions that benefit them personally. If you want to know whether a legislator is using tax law to their benefit, ask them for their business's franchise tax and sales tax returns."

• "A person's income is his/her private business."

• "Enough is enough. Since when did running for office require the electoral equivalent of a colonoscopy? Disclosure ad nauseum will further deter otherwise good people from serving the public."

• "Too much profiteering is resulting from legislative decisions. That should be exposed."

• "They should also have to pass the standardized tests given to school kids and file conflict of interest forms on legislation affecting themselves, business associates, or family members."

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

Are current laws and forms for those disclosures adequate?

• "If you want privacy, don't run for an office that controls billions in state funds and regulates entire industries. Stop whining and start disclosing."

• "Ethics commission needs to be funded adequately to upgrade technology and software. Not doing so thwarts its function.... funny given that the legislators who have to disclose the required information are also the ones who set the budget and funding for Ethics Commission...."

• "Generally yes, although the financial categories of disclosure could be made more meaningful."

• "The only holes in the Ethics laws are that lawyers representing clients interest on the floor of the legislature don't have to reveal clients names, and judges have not restrictions on entertainment, travel, etc."

• "Some "fine-tuning" would likely be in order. With all due respect for my friends at the Tribune, I don't see the need for disclosure of tax returns. Public life is difficult enough."

• "Is this question intended to be funny?"

Our thanks to this week's participants: Cathie Adams, Jenny Aghamalian, Clyde Alexander, George Allen, Jay Arnold, Tom Banning, Walt Baum, Dave Beckwith, Rebecca Bernhardt, Andrew Biar, Allen Blakemore, Tom Blanton, Jeff Bonham, Hugh Brady, Steve Bresnen, Chris Britton, Blaine Bull, Kerry Cammack, Marc Campos, Thure Cannon, Snapper Carr, Janis Carter, Tris Castaneda, Corbin Casteel, Elizabeth Christian, Elna Christopher, Rick Cofer, Lawrence Collins, John Colyandro, Harold Cook, Randy Cubriel, Denise Davis, Hector De Leon, Tom Duffy, David Dunn, Richard Dyer, Jeff Eller, Jack Erskine, John Esparza, Terry Frakes, Wil Galloway, Norman Garza, Dominic Giarratani, Bruce Gibson, Scott Gilmore, Eric Glenn, Michael Grimes, Anthony Haley, Wayne Hamilton, Bill Hammond, Adam Haynes, Ken Hodges, Shanna Igo, Deborah Ingersoll, Richie Jackson, Mark Jones, Lisa Kaufman, Robert Kepple, Richard Khouri, Tom Kleinworth, Ramey Ko, Tim Lambert, Pete Laney, James LeBas, Donald Lee, Luke Legate, Myra Leo, Ruben Longoria, Homero Lucero, Vilma Luna, Matt Mackowiak, Bryan Mayes, Dan McClung, Parker McCollough, Scott McCown, Robert Miller, Lynn Moak, Bee Moorhead, Steve Murdock, Craig Murphy, Keats Norfleet, Pat Nugent, Sylvia Nugent, Gardner Pate, Tom Phillips, Wayne Pierce, Kraege Polan, Jay Pritchard, Jay Propes, Tim Reeves, Jeff Rotkoff, Jason Sabo, Mark Sanders, Andy Sansom, Jim Sartwelle, Stan Schlueter, Steve Scurlock, Bradford Shields, Christopher Shields, Dee Simpson, Ed Small, Larry Soward, Dennis Speight, Tom Spilman, Jason Stanford, Bob Strauser, Colin Strother, Charles Stuart, Michael Quinn Sullivan, Sherry Sylvester, Jay Thompson, Russ Tidwell, Trent Townsend, Trey Trainor, Ware Wendell, Ken Whalen, Darren Whitehurst, Michael Wilt, Seth Winick, Peck Young, Angelo Zottarelli.

Enlarge Ross Ramsey

This week, a couple of prominent Democrats write about how they see things after Ted Cruz's upset win over David Dewhurst in the race for U.S. Senate. Next week, we'll feature a couple of Republicans on the same subject.

* * * * *

When David Dewhurst is not conservative enough for Republican primary voters, then Republican primary voters are no longer conservatives — they’re cannibals. I say this not as a Democrat (though I am one), but rather as a political strategist who is seeing a very changed landscape from the one we’ve grown accustomed to. Without the moderating influence of a healthy political minority, the political majority can chase its imagination down any number of rabbit holes. Don’t believe me? Just ask David Dewhurst, Jeff Wentworth, or even Kay Bailey Hutchison.

The Texas Senate District 10 race is arguably the most important race in this state this coming November. As it stands today, two thirds of the Texas House of Representatives is controlled by the Republican majority. With the recent additions to the Tea Party wing coming from Ted Cruz’s coattails, the House is likely to produce an extreme social agenda that will either delight or terrify, depending on your politics.  

The Texas Senate is no bastion of liberalism and it isn’t moderate by any measure. And yet, for some reason, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst was just accused of being somewhere to the left of John Kerry. So the upper chamber of our state Legislature — ordinarily tasked with reigning in the impulses of the lower house — will shift further to the right should SD-10 flip, replacing Davis with Republican Mark Shelton as the senator from Fort Worth.

What makes this more than just another numerical win is what happens when there is virtually a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. Republican leadership will lose control of the agenda and the only bills moving forward through the 83rd Session will be those favored by social conservatives. Issues near and dear to any other type of conservative or Republican will bow before those dictated by the newly energized, newly elected, Tea Party wing.  Sounds like Shangri-La for the Republicans, yes? Well, not necessarily.

If Republicans win in SD-10, there will only be 11 Democrats in the Texas Senate. That means that in order for the majority to pass anything it wants, all they need to do is peel off one member of the opposition (or just wait for a day when one of them is running late, or steps out to use the bathroom) and they can pass anything they like. Think about that for a moment: All that’s standing between Texas and an absolute one-party rule is a traffic jam or a sick day. I don’t care what your politics are — that’s not good.

Suppose you are a large homebuilder with strong ties to the Republican Party establishment. Suppose you embrace many of the same principles as the new Tea Party members of the Legislature. But what happens when say, a sanctuary cities bill gets introduced? Will your opposition even be heard? Or will you simply be denounced as a conservative apostate or worse yet, a RINO, and dismissed from the conversation?

Let’s say you’re a member of a well-moneyed group of business people who firmly believe that dismantling the trial bar in Texas is the only way to secure economic growth. What will you do if the female, minority, or gay members of your group are threatened from separate corners of the political spheres in, for instance, the realm of marriage, voting rights, or reproductive medicine? It wouldn’t take too many dust-ups like these before the vaunted “Three-Legged-Stool” is over turned completely. This is not a hypothetical struggle. This is truly about how big a tent the Republican Party is able to hold up while it is being driven further and further to the right. 

Essentially, with the Senate held by a virtual supermajority, the same folks who so ardently supported Ted Cruz would be running the show in Austin this coming January. Like I said: terror or delight.

The Wendy Davis race in SD-10 should be a rallying point for Democrats and for Republicans. It should be a moment to reflect on the larger picture, and not on any one individual issue.  After all, this is a fight for their survival and, strangely enough, it depends on a Democrat winning.

Mustafa Tameez is the founder and Managing Director of Outreach Strategists, a Houston-based Public Affairs and Communications firm.

Enlarge Bob Daemmrich

This week, a couple of prominent Democrats write about how they see things after Ted Cruz's upset win over David Dewhurst in the race for U.S. Senate. Next week, we'll feature a couple of Republicans on the same subject.

* * * * *

With the nomination of Ted Cruz for the U.S. Senate and the rise of the Tea Party, it is now clear the inmates have taken over the Republican asylum here in Texas. This creates a tremendous opportunity for Texas Democrats, but only if we’re willing to seize it. And that means not doing everything the same old way.

There is no doubt that a lot of Republicans no longer feel they have a political home. Most of the so-called “establishment Republicans” didn’t sign on with the GOP because of social issues; many are secretly pro choice, pro- (or at least not anti-) gay and pro-immigrant. And they certainly understand the need to invest in education and infrastructure. So why aren’t they Democrats? One word: T-A-X-E-S.

Going back to at least the 1980s, Republicans have routinely been referring to Democrats as “tax & spend liberals.” Instead of doing anything to counteract the image, we have passively embraced it. We constantly talk about the need for rich people to pay more taxes and then wonder why those same rich people aren’t donating money to Democratic candidates. News flash: Rich people like to hang on to their money like everybody else.

When it comes to taxes, the people have spoken. There is no overwhelming desire for a tax increase. When I served in Congress, not one person, either Republican or Democrat, ever approached me and asked that I look for a way for him or her to pay more taxes. Meanwhile, hundreds of people approached and asked for federal money for this or that project. So there’s the rub: People aren’t against government spending, especially on things they care about, but they don’t want to pay more than what they consider their fair share. And right now, everyone believes they’re paying their fair share.

As Democrats, we can either keep trying to talk about greedy rich people or we can decide that we would like to be the majority party here in Texas. And let’s be clear — I’m certainly not suggesting that we cut government spending. On the contrary, I wholeheartedly believe we need to be investing more, not less, in the future of our state and country. We just need to be smarter about where we find the money.

This is actually a traditionally Democratic idea. Most Democrats point to John F. Kennedy as the embodiment of Democratic ideals. So it might surprise some that a tax cut — not an increase, but a tax cut — was President Kennedy’s top legislative priority. He wanted it because he believed the decrease would stimulate economic activity and bring more than three times the amount of the cut into government coffers — dollars that could then be used to fund new programs the administration was proposing. After his assassination, Lyndon Johnson made it his top priority and got the tax cut passed.

So does this mean Democrats should join with Republicans and start cutting taxes indiscriminately? Of course not. But when it makes sense, we shouldn’t draw a line in the sand and act as if we will never consider tax cuts as an economic stimulant. In fact, if Democrats really want to shed our image as the taxing party, there’s a tremendous opportunity staring us in the face. The corporate tax rate in America is the highest, yet it only accounts for about eight percent of our overall revenue. That’s because corporations have moved operations and jobs out of the country in order to avoid paying the 35 percent rate. Many speculate that if the corporate rate drops, jobs and operations move back to the states, helping curb unemployment and greatly increasing tax revenue.

As I type the words above, I can hear fellow Democrats screeching, “Sellout! Why would we do anything to help evil corporate America?” But it’s that attitude that will keep the Democratic Party from moving forward. Corporate America certainly has its undeniable faults and oftentimes demonstrates an amazing level of greed. But it’s also a fact that corporations are not going away and they happen to employ millions of people in America. I don’t think anyone seriously believes we’re going to continue to drive down the unemployment rate without corporations being a big part of the process.

The bottom line is that if we want to grow the Democratic Party, we can’t keep making everything “us against them.” It’s important that we demonstrate that we’re the party of mainstream, sensible solutions. As the Republican Party grows more obstinate, people are going to be looking for leaders who solve problems. Let Republicans be the party of 'no'. We need to be the party that’s actually bringing new ideas to the table. That’s a party people will want to join.

Chris Bell is a former congressman and Democratic candidate for governor of Texas. He practices law in Houston.

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

Saturday, Aug. 11:

• Texas Democratic Party's Latino Engagement Symposium; Fort Worth Hilton (11 a.m.-1 p.m.)

Tuesday, Aug. 14:

• House Ways and Means Committee meeting (10 a.m.)
• Senate Business and Commerce Committee meeting (10 a.m.)

Wednesday, Aug. 15:

• Texas Hispanic Leadership Forum featuring U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; Houston
  

New rules proposed for the Women’s Health Program drew protests from doctors groups. Five statewide groups objected to the provisions barring doctors from discussing abortion as an option with their patients. The state proposed new rules as part of their plan to take over the Women’s Health Program from the federal government and opened them up for public comment. 

The affirmative action case that will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in October prompted the defendant, the University of Texas, to file a brief defending its admissions policies. UT was sued by a white applicant, who claimed that race was the reason she didn’t get into the school in 2008. Lower courts sided with the university, but Abigail Noel Fisher continued her appeal to the highest court, which agreed to hear the case. UT justified its admissions procedures by outlining how many factors it takes into consideration in the admission process. President Bill Powers released a video statement in support of the policy, calling it a tool to make the student body more diverse.

A new study by a University of Texas geophysicist blames the increase in North Texas earthquakes on fracking. The seismic activity is linked to the disposal of water used in the drilling process. Deep wells used for disposal can be as far underground as 13,000 feet and can cause the ground to shift along fault lines. Earthquakes in the Barnett Shale area, where fracking has become a prevalent form of oil and gas production, have increased in frequency, although their magnitude is relatively small. The study’s author, Cliff Frohlich, pointed out that the benefits of fracking may outweigh the increased earthquakes, and urged cooperation on finding a potential solution to the problem.

In spite of a test showing his IQ to be only 61, Texas executed Marvin Wilson for the murder of a police informant in 1992. Competency is usually considered to be 70. State attorneys argued that the test was one of many and shouldn’t be the defining word in an assessment of whether Wilson would be eligible for the death penalty. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the execution to proceed in spite of its 2002 ruling that outlawed the death penalty for mentally impaired prisoners.

George P. Bush has signed on to serve as the deputy finance chairman of the Republican Party of Texas.

Patsy Spaw, the secretary of the Texas Senate, was named staff chairwoman of the National Conference of State Legislatures at the 2012 Legislative Summit.

Gov. Rick Perry has appointed Benjamin N. Smith of McKinney as judge of the 380th Judicial District Court in Collin County for a term to expire at the next general election. 

Perry also appointed Elizabeth Leonard of Midland as judge of the 238th Judicial District Court in Midland County for a term to expire at the next general election.

Brig. Gen. Manuel "Tony" Rodriguez will take command of the Texas State Guard upon the retirement of Maj. Gen. Raymond Peters, who has commanded since July 2009.

ROSS Communications Inc., a strategic communications and public affairs firm, promoted Mona Taylor to vice president. Taylor previously served as one of the company’s senior account associates.

The Texas Governor’s Commission for Women will induct five Texas women into the Texas Women’s Hall of Fame: Barbara Smith Conrad of Center Point, Nina Godiwalla of Houston, Mary Saunders of Denton, Anne Lesley Corn of Austin and Harriet O’Neill of Austin.

James "Jimmy" Simmons is retiring from the presidency of Lamar University in January after 14 years in that post. The Texas State University System is starting a national search for his replacement.

Gene McCarty, the deputy executive director at the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, is retiring after 34 years at the agency. He's been in his current job since 2005. 

Bob Jackson, general counsel at the Texas Department of Transportation, is also retiring at the end of the month. He's been there for almost 30 years.