Enlarge Marjorie Kamys Cotera

January 14th, 2013: Senator John Whitmire D-Houston smiles as fellow Senators praise his 40 years in the Texas legislature

It’s a little funny to talk to people at the Capitol who have been steeled in a culture of political warfare — this is not just staff, but lobbyists and members and everybody else — about the outbreak of peace.

Many differences remain, but those blood veins that were sticking out on everyone’s foreheads and necks in 2009 and 2011 have smoothed out. For the moment, Texas civics is downright civil. Members disagree and then talk to each other. Senate Democrats were full of praise for the very conservative Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, after the upper chamber voted 30-1 for his proposal to increase the number of charter schools in Texas.

The outbreak of warm feelings has a substantive side. Attorney General Greg Abbott is having a hard time selling redistricting. He wants lawmakers to enact the court-drawn maps in place of their own, the better to shorten and simplify ongoing court battles. Even if that is a good idea, it would take the Legislature into stormy waters. Senators looked at it in private meeting and demurred. The House’s response was to say they’ll be happy to look at anything that gets through the Senate.

The House has a new coalition in operation, with establishment Republicans and Democrats siding together against populist Republicans. That was the story on the budget, on key votes in education, and probably says something about why the speaker is reluctant to jump into a messy redistricting fight.

And the money woes that plagued lawmakers two years ago are mostly gone. They’ve been replaced by a set of expensive problems that have even some Republicans talking about higher spending. Tommy Williams, the Senate’s finance chairman, floated an idea for a constitutional amendment that would tap the Rainy Day Fund for billions for roads and water. That would solve two problems, pulling money into infrastructure and doing it in a way that keeps lawmakers from having to vote to spend more money than the state’s constitutional growth cap would allow. If the money gets spent, it would be voters doing the busting and not the people who represent them.

The session is not without its fault lines. One is Medicaid expansion. The governor is solidly against it and some lawmakers are with him in that. But a fair number are looking for ways to accept federal Medicaid expansion money in a way that’s acceptable to Rick Perry. They haven’t found it yet.

The Rainy Day Fund, and whether and how to use it, might be another. Many Democrats want the money cut from public education restored; they had a meeting somewhere and are starting to use the phrase “human infrastructure” a lot to talk about funding for schools and health and human services. That’s a response to the drumbeat of water and transportation infrastructure coming from management. Sure enough, some lawmakers want to use the savings account, or some of it, for infrastructure. Others don’t want to use it at all, and some want to use it, but not just yet. Check out the guest columns in this issue (here, here, here and here) for fuller versions of each viewpoint.

Enlarge Dawn Paley

Two months after a top state Democrat filed a resolution telling Washington that Texas was all in for immigration reform, the measure has proved instead to highlight a lingering divide on the issue.

Despite the talk nationwide about broad support for comprehensive immigration reform and embracing those who “would come out of the shadows” if given the chance, Texas lawmakers haven't bought into the bipartisan hype.

In February, state Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, chairman of the International Trade and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, co-authored House Concurrent Resolution 44 with state Rep. Ana Hernandez Luna, D-Houston. Carefully crafted to include several talking points from Republican groups in favor of reforming the country’s immigration system, the nonbinding resolution was engineered to be an easy sell. It called for an increase in border security, stronger monitoring of visas for potential overstays and adopting an employment verification system – all GOP talking points.

But it also supports a pathway to citizenship.

With fewer than seven weeks left in the legislative session, Anchia has yet to gain support for the measure from a Republican.  

The glitch is in the language, said state Rep. Jason Villalba, R-Dallas. “Conservatives and others alike are nervous that what path to citizenship means is, we have an amnesty program in place,” he said. “Amnesty means a lot of things to a lot of different people.”

Villalba has taken the lead for the conservatives and is working with Anchia to change some of the language.

“We remain optimistic,” Anchia said, despite the lack of visible support. “And we’re making progress.”

But this week also proved the state House members need not look to their federal counterparts for advice on finding common ground. Just days before the so-called Gang of Eight — a bipartisan coalition of U.S. senators — was scheduled to unveil its plans for immigration reform, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, filed companion legislation they dubbed the "Border Security Results Act of 2013.” That bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to meet certain benchmarks, including a 90 percent apprehension rate, and inform Congress regularly of its progress in securing the border.

While Anchia’s measure is nonbinding and symbolic, the Cornyn/McCaul measure has teeth. And the duo has clout. Cornyn is the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Refugees and Border Security Subcommittee, and McCaul, who worked for Cornyn in the Texas attorney general's office,  is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

They don't intend to tell DHS how to do its job or derail immigration reform, they said, adding they want their colleagues to be better informed about the situation on the border as the debate moves forward.

Democrats were not amused.

“With about 800 miles of Texas-Mexico border in the district, I know the border impacts every part of our state. I’m hopeful that this bill is a good faith effort to move forward and not an attempt to build another wall between immigrants and the American dream,” U.S. Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, said in a statement.

His fellow freshman, U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville, added: "Opponents of immigration reform seek to hold the process hostage by insisting on a finding of border security on the U.S.-Mexico border. Attaching such a condition to the immigration reform debate is nothing more than a plain attempt to thwart reform efforts. In other words, those who would condition immigration reform on a finding of border security simply oppose a pathway to citizenship for 11 million unauthorized individuals currently in this country.”

Enlarge

This week in the Newsreel: An effort to legalize casinos is under way in the Texas Senate, Attorney General Greg Abbott wants a redistricting bill, and some lawmakers want to give drug tests to recipients of unemployment and TANF benefits. 

You can view the video at: https://trib.it/16WzAQo

Enlarge

Attorney General Greg Abbott is advising state leaders to adopt court-drawn political maps in place of those drawn by the Legislature, which would get rid of legal problems with the state maps and perhaps save the state some long days in the federal courts. That’s meeting with some legislative resistance, but it prompted us to ask the insiders some redistricting questions this week.  

Most — 57 percent — said the court-drawn maps should be made permanent. If they’re not, however, about as many of the insiders said the federal courts will ultimately uphold the maps that were drawn by the Legislature.

Democrats would be the biggest beneficiaries of continued court action, according to 64 percent of the insiders. Finally, we asked what maps will be used in the 2014 elections: 63 percent said it would be the court-drawn maps used in 2012.  

We collected comments along the way and have attached a full set. A sampling follows:

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

Should the Legislature make permanent the temporary redistricting maps drawn by the courts for the 2012 elections?

• "We need stability in our districts (area, not necessarily people). Now is the time to promote the use of less partisan commissions for redistricting."

• "If legislators insist on waiting on the outcome of appeals before fixing school finance, I suppose they should wait for the conclusion of redistricting challenges as well."

• "The legislature is running on all cylinders for the first time in a long time. Big-ticket items are getting accomplished and there is cordial debate amongst its members. Redistricting is the type of issue that will end the peace treaty."

• "The temporary maps still contain too much of the retrogression that was in the original legislative maps."

• "It now seems apparent that the long term impact of the various 'voter's rights' laws and redistricting efforts by both Ds and Rs have resulted in material erosion of the relevance of the general elections. This reality, particularly for Texas state legislators and congressman, has materially eroded their flexibility in the compromise process so important to good democratic government. My hope--albeit a faint one--would be that the maps would be withdrawn to eliminate, as much as reasonably possible, 'slam dunk' districts, both 'republican' and 'democratic'."

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

Will the courts ultimately uphold the maps drawn by the Legislature last session?

• "Everything involving redistricting is left up to interpretation."

• "The Supreme Court's decision on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act will have some bearing on the final outcome, but the courts have already ruled that intentional discrimination occurred in the Legislature's plan, which suggests that at least some changes will have to be made."

• "Probably not, but it all depends on the SCOTUS ruling on Section 5 this summer."

• "Senate - maybe; House - no way"

• "You want me to predict the mind of John 'Obamacare' Roberts?"

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

Which party would benefit most by keeping the redistricting cases in court?

• "The country is losing in the redistricting battles. It is beneficial to the Republican Party right now because they have the heavier hand, but the division which has been fostered by the packing of districts is preventing civility and search for common ground and preventing progress. That is bad for everyone."

• "If for no other reason than a delayed primary most hurts Republicans by dragging out intra party fights."

• "These maps were pencil-whipped to dilute minority voting strength and create safe R districts despite the growth of populations that are stereotypically Democratic."

• "Dah! Majority of republicans today drawing the maps is the same as democrats skewing the maps in the 80's and 90's to punish republicans."

• "Court-ordered maps and rules are seldom as good for political majority as the majority could do for itself."

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

.

Do you think the 2014 elections will be conducted with the same maps used in 2012?

• "We may have a few tweaks here and there, but ultimately, every incumbent, including Democrats, loves the new maps."

• "Yes, with a few edits. But mostly the same."

• "Judges do not want to deal with this issue because they view it as political and judges believe themselves to be non-political. And the rest of us laugh at them."

• "We'll likely see a 'grand bargain' similar to what we saw in 2006 where an agreement is made among the affected parties."

• "With minor exceptions in DFW metro area and maybe Harris County."

Our thanks to this week's participants: Gene Acuna, Cathie Adams, Brandon Aghamalian, Jenny Aghamalian, Clyde Alexander, George Allen, Jay Arnold, Charles Bailey, Dave Beckwith, Allen Blakemore, Tom Blanton, Hugh Brady, Chris Britton, Andy Brown, Kerry Cammack, Thure Cannon, William Chapman, Elna Christopher, John Colyandro, Harold Cook, Beth Cubriel, Curtis Culwell, Denise Davis, Hector De Leon, June Deadrick, Tom Duffy, David Dunn, Jeff Eller, John Esparza, Jon Fisher, Neftali Garcia, Norman Garza, Dominic Giarratani, Bruce Gibson, Kinnan Golemon, Jim Grace, John Greytok, Clint Hackney, Wayne Hamilton, Adam Haynes, Jim Henson, Ken Hodges, Steve Holzheauser, Deborah Ingersoll, Cal Jillson, Jason Johnson, Mark Jones, Robert Jones, Richard Khouri, Tom Kleinworth, Nick Lampson, Pete Laney, Luke Legate, Leslie Lemon, Ruben Longoria, Vilma Luna, Matt Mackowiak, Dan McClung, Robert Miller, Bee Moorhead, Mike Moses, Keir Murray, Nelson Nease, Keats Norfleet, Pat Nugent, Pat Oxford, Nef Partida, Gardner Pate, Robert Peeler, Bill Pewitt, Jerry Philips, Richard Pineda, Allen Place, Kraege Polan, Jerry Polinard, Gary Polland, Jay Pritchard, Jay Propes, Ted Melina Raab, Bill Ratliff, Tim Reeves, Patrick Reinhart, Grant Ruckel, Jason Sabo, Andy Sansom, Jim Sartwelle, Stan Schlueter, Robert Scott, Bradford Shields, Jason Skaggs, Ed Small, Larry Soward, Dennis Speight, Jason Stanford, Bill Stevens, Keith Strama, Bob Strauser, Colin Strother, Tom Suehs, Sherry Sylvester, Russ Tidwell, Trent Townsend, Trey Trainor, Ware Wendell, Darren Whitehurst, Seth Winick, Peck Young, Angelo Zottarelli.

Enlarge Todd Wiseman

Monday, April 15

• House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, 9 a.m.
• Senate Nominations, 11:30 a.m.
• House Economic and Small Business Development Subcommittee on Manufacturing, 12:30 p.m.
• House Investments and Financial Services, 12:30 p.m.
• House Adminsitration, 2 p.m.
• House Elections, 2 p.m.
• House Government Efficiency and Reform, 2 p.m.
• House Interntional Trade and Intergovernmental Affairs, 2 p.m.
• House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence, 2 p.m.
• House Land and Resource Management, 2 p.m.
• House Pensions, 2 p.m.
• House Technolgy, 2 p.m.
• House Ways and Means, 2 p.m.
• Senate Open Government, 2 p.m.

Tuesday, April 16

• House Transportation, 8 a.m.
• Senate Business and Commerce, 8 a.m.
• Senate Health and Human Services, 9 a.m.
• House Environmental Regulation, 10:30 a.m.
• House Human Services, 10:30 a.m.
• House Licensing and Administrative Procedures, noon
• Senate Jurisprudence, 1:30 p.m.

Wednesday, April 17

• Senate Transportation, 8 a.m.
• House Corrections, 2 p.m.

Enlarge

The legislative session is a series of difficult decisions, each requiring lawmakers to weigh their own beliefs and convictions against the reality of governing. The need to develop water infrastructure and supplies for a growing Texas and the means to fund such development is a fantastic example. Many lawmakers see this session as a potential watershed moment for Texas' continued long-term success, and they are even willing to take extraordinary measures, such as a one-time expenditure from the Economic Stabilization Fund — better known as the Rainy Day Fund — to address our state's water needs. However, the merits of such an extraordinary action should be openly debated.

First, "water" is a fundamental function of government; no one disputes that. And no one is disputing that the water crisis is real. The only question is what we plan to do about it. We recently passed House Bill 4, which created a mechanism for funding our state's water plan. While HB 4 passed by a near unanimous vote, the proposal to fund this mechanism — known as House Bill 11 — takes $2 billion from the RDF. That should give quite a bit of pause to not only to proponents of  limited government, but to those of good government, too.

The Rainy Day Fund was created amidst a severe economic crisis during the mid-1980s to ensure the state had a cash reserve to offset unexpected downturns in the economy. The fund, most of which comes from oil and gas revenue, is not allowed to rise above 10 percent of general state revenue. According to the comptroller's office, we are not currently near that cap and don’t expect to be next session, either.

The Legislature has used the fund to bridge revenue shortfalls numerous times since 2003, fulfilling the express purpose for which it was created. Texas is currently experiencing extremely uncertain times that could pose serious challenges to our budget.

First, our federal government is plagued by gridlock and has failed as a rational governing partner for some time. Whether it was the near default, the fiscal-cliff freak-out or the current sequester, our federal government does not inspire confidence. Due to the sequester, Texas could face billions in absorbed costs for delivery of critical services, as well as potential tax revenue losses as a result of military bases closing and other decreases in federal activity in the state.

Furthermore, Texas is in the midst of another school finance lawsuit that could potentially obligate unknown billions more to the public school system. And while we are blessed with access to the Gulf of Mexico, what should happen if we are struck by a storm of the magnitude of Hurricane Sandy or Katrina along our coast with the current status of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association? The fund was created for these types of emergency events that threaten the state's ability to meet its obligations.

Last session, some insisted that we use the fund to cover the shortfall in public education. Rightfully, the Legislature resisted the urge to spend money for a purpose outside of the scope of the fund. Today is no different. Any one-time expenditure that is outside the fund’s stated purpose — even for essential functions like public education or water — leaves the state weaker, not stronger. Why don't we find the political courage to cut $2 billion from nonessential programs and put that money into an essential function like water? We are nearing a crisis that demands planning and action — much like the planning and action taken by a previous Legislature to create the fund to address future economic swings. To me, our water security and our budget security are parts of the same conversation on preparedness. Sacrificing one for the other is not good government; it is a gamble with potentially severe consequences.

Our goal should be to leave Texas at the end of this legislative session as prepared as it possibly can be for the uncertainties of the future. We can do this by funding the water growth we need by making the necessary, tough decisions in reordering existing appropriations and by preserving the fund for any number of potential rainy days ahead.

Republican Matt Krause of Fort Worth represents House District 93.

Enlarge

When I meet people in my district, one of the first questions I'll ask someone is where they went to school. They don't answer, Texas, U of H or TSU, though they might have gone there. They proudly answer me with their high school — Jack Yates, Worthing, Jones, Westbury — or for some of my older constituents, Wheatley. In other parts of the state, Texans take pride in telling people they went to schools like Permian, Churchill, Dallas Carter, Westlake or PSJ. Schools are the cornerstones of our neighborhoods and communities. However, school funding was cut to the bone in 2011. My fellow Democrats and I represent almost 1.8 million Texan students. Therefore, we stand ready to battle the Republican majority for the future of our public schools and the future of Texas. The opportunity exists now to start making things right by using the Rainy Day Fund to restore funding for education.

No district — rich or poor — escaped the devastating effects of the loss of $5.4 billion for education. Texans saw how Republican-mandated education cuts affected their children's classrooms. Texas classrooms are left with 21,000 fewer teachers and staff. Texas schools have three times as many overcrowded classrooms than before the budget cuts. Funding to expand Pre-K from half-day to full-day programs was completely eliminated. Our public school students are not second-class citizens.

Despite an $8.8 billion budget surplus, the Republican leadership refuses to fully restore funds for education cuts made in 2011. According to the Center for Public Policy Priorities, the $9,435 spent per student in the House budget is still $761 less than the amount spent in 2008. By the end of 2015, the RDF is projected to have a balance of almost $12 billion. Just as in the past, we must use a necessary amount of that to close the gap in public education.

When voters approved the RDF in 1988, it was sold as a source of revenue to maintain current and ongoing services during tough economic times. In fact, when the fund was first tapped in 1991, the entire balance was spent on public education. Then in 1993, the Legislature drained the fund to pay for criminal justice initiatives. Gov. Rick Perry and the Legislature used the fund to plug budget holes in 2003 and 2005 to pay for ongoing expenses like the Teacher Retirement System, state health and human services, the governor’s office and the Texas Education Agency.

Spending from the RDF for education and human services was the right thing to do 10 years ago, and it's the right thing to do now. Over the past few sessions, the governor and Republican leaders tried to redefine how the fund can be used for such things as one-time expenses. However, that idea is actually a new interpretation at odds with the fund's original purpose and past usage.

Investment in the human infrastructure of our state is as critical as investment in the physical infrastructure. The Senate proposed spending $6 billion on water and transportation. How can we invest in our roads and dams while not investing in the future of our children who will use them in the future? As the economist Ray Perryman wrote, "It makes little sense to underfund key priorities such as education."

Continuing the Republican policy of grossly underfunding our schools does irreparable harm to our state. Former state demographer Steve Murdock projected that by 2040, continuing to underfund education can lead to a 40 percent increase in poverty, a 50 percent increase in people on welfare and a 54 percent increase to the prison population, on top of a declining average household income. We cannot afford to continue down this path.

My wife and I had a baby girl during the 2011 special session. I would rather have been by her side during her first week of life. However, I was in Austin fighting for public education because it is simply that important to her future and the future of all Texas children. The Legislature needs to act now and use the Rainy Day Fund to restore our public education system and provide a bright future for all of our children in our great state of Texas.

Democrat Borris Miles of Houston represents House District 146.

Enlarge

Transferring money from the economic stabilization fund, also known as the Rainy Day Fund, to capitalize a water infrastructure bank is the most fiscally prudent approach the Legislature can take to uphold one of its core constitutional duties and ensure that our private-sector economy continues to thrive.

Article 16, Section 59 of the Texas Constitution is known as the "Conservation Amendment." It states that the conservation and development of all the natural resources of the state are public rights and duties, and it declares that the Legislature shall pass laws necessary to preserve them. The most fundamental of these natural resources is water.

Our 2012 State Water Plan is the result of a regional planning process comprised of local stakeholders who evaluated needs over 50 years and recommended strategies to meet that demand. It recognizes that over the next 50 years, our water supply will decrease 18 percent while our water demands increase by 27 percent. If we don’t act, we could be 8.3 million acre-feet short per year by 2060. That’s almost 3 trillion gallons of water.

The State Water Plan, however, has never been fully funded. And as we continue to delay addressing our water needs, businesses are left to question whether Texas will have the reliable supplies of water that are essential for long-term economic growth. We need a dedicated source of funding so water providers can make the long-term planning decisions necessary to begin work on projects that are needed now to meet our demands. Without it, citizens could experience higher water rates, or providers may decide to delay projects, thereby increasing costs and threatening economic growth.

House Bill 4 creates a dedicated source of funding to provide meaningful financing to water providers across the state. A one-time transfer of $2 billion from the RDF would capitalize a water infrastructure bank that revolves its funds so that over time — if properly capitalized — it could finance $27 billion worth of strategies contained in the 2012 plan.

The value of using the RDF is that it allows for a one-time infusion of money that guarantees the state's support of water projects for years to come. It also replaces a continuing demand for general revenue funding. In the past, the Legislature has intermittently addressed funding the State Water Plan by using general revenue money to pay debt service on the bonds issued. If we tried to fund the State Water Plan from general revenue, by 2060, it would take between $8 billion and $12 billion. But using the financing mechanisms created in HB 4, a one-time capitalization of $2 billion could fully implement the plan and not require on-going general revenue support.

Using $2 billion to address water needs would still leave a significant balance — about $10 billion — in the RDF. In other words, more than enough money will remain in the fund to protect our credit rating and prepare for unforeseen future disasters. We can minimize the almost immeasurable cost of an unreliable supply of water and show employers that the Texas economy is equipped to prosper.

A one-time withdrawal from the Rainy Day Fund will allow the state to manage the effects of severe droughts, ensure an affordable water supply, foster economic growth and protect the and natural resources of the entire state. As legislators, this is our duty.

Republican Allan B. Ritter of Nederland represents House District 21.

Enlarge

Texans are asking the wrong question when it comes to financing the state water plan. It's not “if,” but “when and by what means?” The passage of House Bill 4 solidified the Legislature's promise to make the implementation of water infrastructure a priority this session. This legislation does just that by establishing the framework to implement and administer House Bill 11's one-time $2 billion appropriation for funding specific water projects throughout the state.

Now, to be clear, this is not a debate on having a water plan. It’s a discussion on the best way to fund our water needs while protecting the state's financial stability.

The need for the actual funding is estimated to be more than a year away since so many pieces of HB 4 have to be put in place before a dime can be spent. So what does all this mean? The House budget is within $680 million of the constitutional spending cap, with several initiatives requiring budget dollars waiting to come to fruition. The estimated $2 billion to be transferred from the Economic Stabilization Fund, better known as Rainy Day Fund, would force a vote on busting that spending cap, which requires simple majority vote in the House. Since the need for actual funding is be more than a year away, this does not make sense.

The Legislature should follow the constitutional rules that keep state government living within its means. Overriding or intentionally disregarding the spending cap, which enforces responsible fiscal stewardship of taxpayer dollars, would set a dangerous precedent. It would also send a message that the rules only apply when they are convenient.

The prudent course would be to defer the actual funding of the water plan until all governance and oversight processes of HB 4 have been developed, ensuring that the dollars to be spent will be properly accounted for. The transfer of money from the RDF for the sake of political posturing — "doing something for the sake of doing something" — has to be set aside in the name of common sense. Caution needs to be exercised before the actual dollars are released.

If we wait until 2015 to fund the water plan, the next Legislature can appropriate the necessary $2 billion, either from the RDF or some other funding option that may become available. For example, there might be general revenue in excess of the budget revenue estimate used to write the 2014-15 budget. Setting political posturing aside and using common sense in this situation could yield options that may become available with time, and allows the Legislature to keep the rules in place that keep Texas among the top economic performing states in the union.

I think Texans would agree — let the need drive the timing.

Republican Charles Perry of Lubbock represents House District 83.

Lawmakers reacted positively to the University of Texas System regents' unanimous vote to turn over requested documents to legislators, but they also indicated that tensions between the system and the Capitol have not been laid to rest. Board Chairman Gene Powell had previously asked Attorney General Greg Abbott for an opinion on whether the board had to turn over all records lawmakers had requested, a move that angered many elected officials. The regents also voted to ask the attorney general to conduct a review of a controversial and now-defunct forgivable loan program run by the University of Texas Law School Foundation.

An ambitious plan to spend $6 billion from the state’s Rainy Day Fund while also setting the stage for a serious debate in the remaining weeks of the session on whether to tap the fund for public education was uncorked this week by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands. His proposal for a constitutional amendment would ask Texas voters to approve spending $3.5 billion on transportation projects and $2.5 billion on water projects. The comptroller’s office has projected the fund, fed largely by taxes on the state’s oil and gas production, will grow to $11.8 billion by the end of the next biennium. By putting it in a constitutional amendment, the proposal would leave to voters whether they want to allow state spending to exceed a cap on growth.

State Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, delivered an impassioned plea in support of what threatens to become a beleaguered tax credit scholarship plan during a hearing on his legislation. "We are great enough in this state to do this thing if we just knock down some barriers of people who are against opportunity and competition because they always have been," he said. Currently, those barriers likely include the Texas House, where lawmakers recently made their opposition to the issue clear when they overwhelmingly passed an amendment to the state budget aimed at banning private school vouchers — which nine out of 10 members of the lower chamber's education committee voted for — and possibly members of Patrick's own party in the Senate.

Doubling down on their vows to focus on border security before considering immigration reform, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, filed legislation  that will further scrutinize how well the federal government protects the U.S.-Mexico border. They talked about the need for more drones and other technology to help secure the border, and said strict deadlines should be in place for the Department of Homeland Security to reach such goals.

Texans who apply for unemployment benefits could be subject to drug testing under a measure the Senate approved unanimously. Senate Bill 21 would require applicants for unemployment benefits to take a drug test if their responses to a screening questionnaire raise red flags that indicate drug use.

Gov. Rick Perry appointed Erleigh Norville Wiley of Forney as Kaufman County district attorney, replacing Republican Mike McLelland, who was killed in his own home last month. Wiley is judge of the Kaufman County Court-at-Law; she is a former supervising attorney with the Dallas County district attorney. 

Toni Anne Dashiell was elected national GOP committeewoman from Texas. She will serve the remainder of the late Borah Van Dormolen’s term. Dashiell is a former president of the Texas Federation of Republican Women and the current chair of the Kendall County GOP.

Indicted: John Higgins, aide to Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt, R-Lexington, on felony charges related to allegations of improper state travel reimbursements. He said last year that other employees had signed his name to those documents.