Waiting for the decision on marriage equality

One of the most immediate and impactful decisions affecting the lives of Americans -- besides the ruling on Obamacare subsidies, of course --  will be the SCOTUS's call on gay marriage, due before the end of this month.  (The Fifth Circuit is also deliberating the question and may announce its decision prior to the Supreme Court's.  It won't have the final say, of course.)  Gatherings are planned around Texas to celebrate anticipated good news; Katie Couric recently interviewed one of the lead plaintiffs, Jeff Obergefell.

His case, Obergefell v. Hodges, rests on two questions. One is whether  the Constitution requires a state where same-sex marriage is not legal to recognize a marriage licensed in a state where it is legal. The other question is whether the Constitution requires states to license marriages between two people of the same sex — in other words, whether same-sex marriage should be legal nationwide.

The case will likely stand in the history of legal annals alongside iconic civil rights cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade.

SCOTUSblog’s Kevin Russell says if the court rules in favor of the legality of same-sex marriages on both of the questions that Obergefell v. Hodges asks, the implications could extend far beyond marriage. 

 “This could be a decision that says that it is generally unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in every sphere,” says Russell. “And if the Supreme Court holds that, then this will be a huge case. It'll be the ‘Brown v. Board of Education’ for sexual orientation. It will mean that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, at least by states and by the federal government, is unconstitutional across the board.”

Obergefell’s case, however, also poses an unlikely danger to proponents of same-sex marriage. Currently, 37 states and Washington, D.C., have legalized same-sex marriage. However, in 21 of those states, it is only legal because courts ruled state bans unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court rules against him, and additionally goes so far as to say that the Constitution does not protect marriage at all, those rulings could be in jeopardy.

Experts say that outcome is largely unexpected, but they concede that this scenario could be a major setback for gay couples. Same-sex couples who are now legally married in 21 states could suddenly lose their legal status. As Russell says, “It would be a huge mess.”  

That fear is not lost on Obergefell, who says he “absolutely” shares that concern. “I think there would be a certain level of pandemonium in the country. I mean, how could there not be, because suddenly, again, you're creating this second class of citizens.”

And so we wait (hopefully to celebrate).  Update: Charles has more on the preparations being made at various Texas county courthouses.

Green Party of Texas holds state meeting this weekend

From the press release:

http://gptx.nationbuilder.com

Texas Greens hold state meeting in Tarrant County June 6-7, 2015

By-laws, amendments, election of state officers, and and 2016 ballot access
retention on agenda for delegates' consensus approval

The Green Party of Texas will hold its annual state meeting this Saturday and Sunday, June 6 and 7, at the United Bethlehem Center, 970 E. Humbolt St., Fort Worth.  Regular party business including the consensus on various by-laws and amendments and the election of state party officers will be conducted, along with party-building workshops and seminars.

Given that 2016 will be a better-than-average year for Democratic candidates for a number of reasons, as well as the state legislature’s continued assault on non-primary parties, discussion on ballot retention will be a primary focus. 

According to outgoing GPTX CoChair kat swift, “Getting and maintaining ballot access is always a problem in Texas.  Once ballot access is attained, state law requires active political parties in Texas to achieve a minimum 5% of the total of votes for any one statewide office in order to maintain ballot status, but with straight-ticket voting this is only possible when one primary party fails to run a candidate.”

In recent years the GPTX has been able to keep its future ballot line by running in at least one statewide race where there was no Democrat entered.  In this last legislative session, a bill to end straight-ticket voting was opposed by both primary party lobbyists, as well as a bill to make non-primary parties pay to get on the general election ballot.

“The state legislature continues to work toward more restrictive access to an already restricted ballot line.  We must be diligent if we wish to continue to provide voters a populist alternative to the corporate-run, two-party duopoly,” swift said.

For more information, including a phone number to call, please contact media committee chair Aaron Renaud at aaron.renaud@gmail.com.

There's a fairly interesting development under way for the 2016 ballot, which I can't blog about until after the vote is taken on Saturday. Stay tuned for that.

Lines form at the Lege exit doors

First were Sylvester Turner and Allen Fletcher, two Houston state reps from opposite sides of the aisle who, as we know, are both pursuing other offices.  Democrat Joe Farias of San Antonio also called it quits along with Belton Republican Jimmie Don Aycock, and yesterday it was Republican Sen. Troy Fraser -- the man who helped make Rick Perry a millionaire as governor -- and the head of the Texas State Bored of Education, Thomas Ratliff.  Kind words were spoken about all of them except Fletcher, from what I can tell.

But nobody, and I do mean nobody, is going to miss Fraser, who "had trouble hearing women's voices" among his many shortcomings.  Aycock is a different story.

"I don't think there is anybody in this body who has garnered the respect that you have for your evenhanded way of dealing with things, authentic way of being, and willingness to do what’s right for the state of Texas,"  state Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, told Aycock on the floor Monday.

As House education chair this session, he worked hard to try to fix the school financing method -- ruled unconstitutional by one state judge, under review by the Texas Supreme Court at the moment -- which was unraveled by the last-minute clusterfuck of legislation that bottlenecks our legislature at deadline.  In yesterday's post Gadfly and I had a discussion in the comments about whether the Lege's failure to address this issue might mean a special session before 2017 on the topic.  (I think the answer is 'no' mostly on the basis of Aycock's pulling the plug and not Abbott's pronouncement.)

Charles has more on Fraser, the health challenges of Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, who almost certainly won't be running again, and Ratliff, mentioned also in the update below.  With a blue hurricane forming for 2016, it's possible that Texas could do worse with some of these open seats, but the prospects of improvement appear a little brighter.  Only if some lousy TeaBagger clutching his gun and bible replaces Fraser in the Senate could we consider ourselves worse off.

Update:  But if Kevin Eltife decides not to run for re-election -- or is challenged from his right in a 2016 primary and loses --  then the Texas Senate will be much the worse off.

Was Abbott's first legislative session a success or a failure?

It's all in the spin.

Republicans -- after changing state Senate rules -- cut taxes, loosened gun laws and boosted border security. They also put off addressing complicated issues such as fixing the school finance system, avoided more contentious proposals such as banning so-called sanctuary cities and repealing in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants, and, perhaps not coincidentally, averted the special sessions that have become common in recent years.

"Legislators are going home today," Gov. Greg Abbott told reporters after signing a narrow bill to allow Texans to treat epilepsy with an oil derived from marijuana, "and I do not anticipate them coming back until 2017."

No special session is the best news post-Sine Die.  But the many downsides of the 84th include one of the governor's emergency items -- ethics reform -- that died like a dog in the street.

A new loophole elected officials can use to avoid financial disclosure? Check. Giving Texas politicians and bureaucrats special treatment when they commit white-collar crimes in Austin? Done. Keeping the public in the dark about lobbyist wining and dining? Accomplished. Sweeping ethics reform? Not so much.

[...]

“This session there was a real opportunity to improve that process and enhance trust, and instead I think things went backwards,” said Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Watson, who saw his bills shedding light on lobbyist wining and dining go down in flames. “The governor had an emergency declaration that it was supposed to be about ethics, and we’re watching real ethics legislation die a brutal death.”

Aides to Gov. Greg Abbott, who in February called on legislators to “dedicate this session to ethics reform,” did not respond to messages seeking comment about the failure of one his signature initiatives. Abbott has given no hint that he would call a special session on ethics reform.

This part is especially revealing.

One place to start might be the rubble of Senate Bill 19. That major overhaul effort fell apart two days before the clock ran out on the session and quickly dissolved into finger-pointing between the House and Senate over whether to require disclosure of anonymous donations given to politically active nonprofits.

The House wanted it. The Senate didn’t. And efforts at compromise failed.

More on that.

“I’ve already written about (campaign cash disclosures) as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court,” Abbott said. “I wrote that laws like that are unconstitutional, and I based that decision on United States Supreme Court decisions, and I think it’s important for legislators not to try to pass laws that have already been ruled unconstitutional.”

[...]

Abbott aides did not respond to inquiries about what ruling he was talking about, but in 1998 Abbott wrote in a decision for the majority that Bay Area Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse did not have to identify its contributors.

And that's why we need a constitutional amendment.  Back to the original.

Buck Wood, a Democratic lawyer who helped push though ethics reform after the Sharpstown stock fraud scandal shook up Texas politics in the early 1970s, predicted as much several weeks ago, as hearings on the broad reforms were just starting.

“The Legislature is just not willing to regulate itself, and that’s always been the case. It takes some sort of massive scandal to get anything done,” he said Sunday. “I don’t think frankly there was really any serious effort to get it done. There was a lot of talk, but I think that’s all it was — talk.”

That’s not to say lawmakers didn’t do anything to change the laws that affect them, but it wasn’t what the reformers had in mind. Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, managed to tack on an amendment — in two different bills — that opens up a “spousal loophole” allowing politicians to shield details about their spouses' financial holdings.

Huffman was also instrumental in passing a bill creating a unique carve-out for lawmakers accused of public corruption. If Abbott doesn't veto it, no longer will he or other state elected officials be required to face an investigation by local prosecutors in the county where the alleged corruption occurred. Instead, they will face an initial probe by the state police — whose budget the politicians oversee — and then prosecution and trial in the county where they maintain a homestead.

So Abbott can say he batted .800 on "emergency items", but his big whiff on ethics reform is a foul stench that hangs over the Capitol like a dark cloud.  His crack as he signed the medicinal cannabis bill was also something we can wish that Republicans who favor legalization might remember to hold against him.

Surrounded by families whose loved ones have suffered from intractable epilepsy, Abbott insisted that the new law was narrowly tailored for a specific purpose.

"I remain convinced that Texas should not legalize marijuana, nor should Texas open the door for conventional marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes," Abbott said before the signing. "As governor, I will not allow it; SB 339 does not open the door to marijuana in Texas."

But not all medical marijuana advocates are celebrating. Many believe the new law does not go far enough, offering limited options to Texans with epilepsy — the proposal requires a CBD-THC ratio of no more than 20:1 — and nothing for those with other diseases that can be treated with medical marijuana, such as cancer.

So nearly no advancement -- even some regression -- on these matters of concern, but a lot more small-government intrusiveness into the lives of pregnant teenagers.  Teabaggers aren't happy about the lack of progress on their issues, while most of the rest of Texas gives thanks that it wasn't worse.

Win-win?

Only if you're into that 'lesser of two evils' BS.

Update: If you prefer an executive summary of the 84th from the AP's perspective, go here.  And read Texans for Public Justice's take on Abbott's leadership missing in action on ethics reform.