|
IN THIS ISSUE:
6. Election Laws
8. Children's Health 9. Child Care 10. Energy Issues
11. Equal Opportunity/ 13. Redistricting
14. Reproductive Choice/
15. Water Resources |
Deanna Frisk, Advocacy Director
Brandon Spenrath, Editor
|
|
|
Welcome to the 2007 Legislative Newsletter. Go to this website to see who is on what committee and find out about bills, etc. www.capitol.state.tx.us Next articles are due April 23. Published April 27.
Do you know someone who may have an interest in the Legislative Newsletter? Don't keep it to yourself! Share it with a friend or family member. Better yet, share it with five! Simply forward it to their email address. For inquiries or to request information about membership email membership@lwvtexas.org.
1. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMMaxine Barkan (Austin)mlbarkan@aol.comCampaign Finance Reform is part of five issues called MAKING DEMOCRACY WORK: A Texas Agenda. A group of statewide organizations including the League, Common Cause, Texans for Public Justice, Public Citizen, Baptist Christian Life Commission, and Gray Panthers have agreed to advocate for these issues. The Campaign Finance Reform part of the Agenda includes:
Texans Against Big Money, the group committed to campaign finance reform, will advocate for three CFR bills: HB 110 Strama, HB 111 Villarreal, and HB 1085 T. Smith. The first two would impose limits of $100,000 on the total amount an individual can contribute to a candidate in an election cycle, and the third would prohibit phony “issue” ads. These are issues of long standing the League and others have worked on and with some bipartisan support. In addition to the twelve organizations including the League that already support the campaign, a letter has been mailed to a large number of diverse organizations asking for support for our agenda. Although the bills have not yet been scheduled for a hearing, members of the planning group will be sending letters to the editors of statewide newspapers explaining why we need campaign contribution limits. Efforts will be made to encourage the Elections Committee to schedule hearings, after which a press conference will be held with members of both political parties and members of the supporting organizations. HB 110 (Strama, Co-Sponsor Villarreal) SUPPORT under the Texas Fairness Act, would limit contributions from an individual in an election cycle to candidates in several categories: (1) for statewide offices including the executive branch, $2,000; state senator, $1,000; state representative, $500; State Board of Education, $1,500. Strama’s bill would also prohibit repayment of loans or extensions of credit from campaign funds, an issue the League has advocated for a number of sessions. HB 110 would also address expenditure limits by candidates with voluntary compliance. The U. S. Supreme Court has said that mandatory limits on expenditures are subject to the freedom of speech amendment. HB 111 (Villarreal, Co-Sponsor Strama) SUPPORT referred to as the “Clean Elections Act.” Both Reps. Villarreal and Strama introduced this same bill in the last session that did not make it out of committee. HB 111 would limit individual contributions to a candidate, officeholder, or political committee in an election cycle to $100,000. Recipients of the contributions would be required to return any funds above that amount to the donor. Both bills would restrict minors from making contributions that presumably would have been collected by adults in the name of the minor. Villarreal puts a limit of $5,000 on such contributions. SB 250 (Ellis) SUPPORT is the Senate version of HB 111 filed by Rep. Michael Villarreal that was reported in LNL #19.1. Sen. Ellis’s bill would limit in the aggregate up to $100,000 in an election cycle, an election cycle defined as beginning January 1 of an odd-numbered year and ending on December 31 of an even-numbered year. In addition, a contribution from a child younger than 18 years of age, would be considered a contribution by the individual. This provision is to ensure that adults are not using children to circumvent the intent of the legislation. HB 647 (McCall) SUPPORT would close a loophole of political contributions during special sessions of the legislature. When the governor calls a special legislative session from the call to final adjournment, an individual may not make a contribution to a statewide officeholder, member of the legislature or a specific-purpose committee to support or oppose the lawmaker. After three sessions in the 79th session, this provision would make eminent sense for regulating contributions that could influence pending legislation. The House Elections Committee heard this bill on February 21st. The League signed an affidavit in favor of the bill but did not speak. Also in favor was a lobby representative from the Professional Advocacy Association of Texas. He noted that public trust needs to be restored for both lobbyists and legislators. Rep. Lon Burnam was concerned about the length of time from the date a special session would be called by the governor to date the session would start. He was worried about the ability to raise funds if there was a long lag between the call and the start of the session. However, the bill seems like a no-brainer. It was left pending in committee. HB 602(D. Howard) SUPPORT would require a two-year period before accepting employment as a lobbyist. The legislature meets every other year, so a one-year period would be ineffective. The require-ment would apply to former legislators not to be employed or appointed to a department, commission, board, or other agency in the executive, legislative, judicial branch of state government, or be employed by an entity that is regulated by a department, commission, or board for a two-year period. If passed, this would reduce significantly the influence on former legislators from their former colleagues. This bill addresses the issue of the revolving door in which legislators can immediately become lobbyists after leaving office. On March 14, 2007, oral and written testimony in favor of HB 602 was given by the League at the Election Committee hearing. Three other bills concerning lobby restrictions have been filed: HB 2634 (Bolton) SUPPORT is a lobby restriction bill with the two-year period leaving the legislature after the end of a term: however hers does not address contract restrictions required in HB 602. SB 1103 (Patrick) SUPPORT, is an identical bill making this a bipartisan effort. These two bills exempt former legislative members who communicate with nonprofits organizations, individuals, groups of low-income individuals, or groups of individuals with disabilities and do not receive compensation except for expenses. Neither Sen. Patrick nor Rep. Bolton’s bills are as strong as that of Rep. Howard. HB 2802 (Garcia) SUPPORT only restricts a former member of the legislature from being employed as a registered lobbyist two years after the term of office is completed. It does not have the exemptions of the other two bills. The League supports these three measures, but they do not cover as many conditions for comprehensive reform and only Rep. Howard’s bill includes all three branches of government. As usual these bills were left pending. Five bills have been filed that address reporting of gifts given to public officials. Texas law requires reporting of all gifts over $250 in value. The public was made aware last summer that a donor, through a second party, gave two checks totaling $100,000 to a public official that was disclosed as a “check” without a description of the gift. Rep. Lon Burnam led a group including LWV-TX to ask for an Advisory Opinion from the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) as to the legality of the transaction. The TEC in response indicated the law was vague and unenforceable and suggested the Legislature enact measures that would require such information. Other legal opinions were that the current law is enforceable if TEC would do so. Thus, some legislators have filed bills with specifics. HB 158 (Naishtat, Co-Sponsor Hill) SUPPORT would require an individual when reporting include in the description of a gift a statement of the fair market value of the gift. HB 64 (Leibowitz) SUPPORT is the same as Rep. Naishtat’s bill. HB 72(Hill, Co-Sponsor Naishtat) SUPPORT has relatively the same provision with the addition that is be a cash or cash equivalent such as negotiable instrument or gift certificate. HB 255 (Smith) SUPPORT and (HB 393 Menendez) SUPPORT are similar to HB 72. HB 393 also provides for a civil penalty for failure to correctly report a gift. Other bills on a variety of issues relating to campaign finance reform have been filed. HB 421 (Shapleigh) SUPPORT includes language that would include rather than indicate that express political advertising, the authorization of the candidate, identifying the candidate; and stipulates that advertising through electronic media have a statement that identifies the candidate and that the candidate approves the communication. This measure would make public the ads that often are not identified or may not have the authorization of the candidate. All the foregoing bills have been referred to the Elections Committee SB 64 (Zaffirini) (SUPPORT) would require general-purpose committees to file additional reports from the ninth day before an election until the second day before an election if the contributions exceed $1,000. This provision would curtail the “late train” donations before an election. Heard by the Senate State Affairs Committee February 26, 2007. The League signed in favor. SB 83 (Hinojosa) SUPPORT covers a number of reforms in the areas of communications and campaign advertising, issues that have come before the Legislature many times. In brief, the bill addresses the definition of coordinated expenditures in which expenditures can be made by a candidate, officeholder, or political committee from a contribution that the candidate has agreed to. Candidates would not be able to say they were unaware of these expenditures that usually are made for advertising, mail outs, phone banks and are often negative in tone. The time frame in what constitutes electioneering communications, such as mass mailings or telephone banks would be considered to be on or after the 60th day before the general, special, or run-off election or after the 30th day of the primary and targeted to the candidate’s electorate. HB 1085 (T. Smith) SUPPORT is the same as SB 83(Hinojosa) SB 424 (Shapleigh) SUPPORT addresses the issue of concerning members of the governor’s executive staff becoming lobbyists when leaving that employment. Before the first anniversary of the date the person’s employment by the governor ends, that person may not become a registered lobbyist. These are staff that has been involved in formulating policy, testifying before the legislature, or supervising other employees who perform similar jobs. Obviously, such former staff members could influence public policy based on their former activities. At the hearing of the Elections Committee on March 14, 2007, the League signed in support of HB 2451 (Burnam) SUPPORT that would give the Texas Ethics Commission rule making authority to implement or interpret the purpose of regulating elections and prohibiting undue influence. As in two other bills reported in LNL #5 the purpose is to provide legislation for the Ethics Commission to require full disclosure of moneys contributed to political parties or PACs which they did not do when a check was given with no identification last year by a third party. This authority really exists, some say, in Government Code Section 571.001 which includes “(3) to disclose fully information related to expenditures and contributions of elections and for petitioning government.” The Commission has said it needs the authority from the legislature. The bill was left pending. NEW INFORMATION: HB 158 (Naishtat) SUPPORT was heard in committee on March 14, 2007. The League signed in favor of the bill at the hearing. The bill has several co-sponsors who had similar bills to offer. They have been combined into one, CSHB 158 after making sure the language of the bill would accomplish the goal. To review, last year the Texas Ethics Commission, in an Advisory Opinion which the League with several other organizations requested, stated that a state official did not have to report the value of a gift of cash or a check. This was in response to two checks last summer totaling $100,000 that were reported to the Ethics Commission as checks with no identifying information. In the Advisory Opinion, the Commission said they were not required to request this information. The Commission’s advice was to ask the legislature to pass legislation that would be specific. CSHB 158 would require an individual to report the fair market value of a gift when filing a financial statement with the Ethics Commission. No fiscal note is required. If passed, the financial reporting would be required after January 1, 2008. CSHB 158, scheduled for debate in the House on April 11, 2007, was passed to engrossment and sent to the Senate. The three bills that are the focus of the Texans Against Big Money group will be heard at the Elections Committee hearing on April 18, 2007. These are: HB 110 (Strama), HB 111 (Villareal), and HB 1085 (T. Smith). The first two would place limits of $100,000 in contributions to a candidate by an individual in an election cycle, and Rep. Smith’s bill that would prohibit phony “issue” ads in the closing weeks of an election. The League and other member organizations will present testimony in support of these bills. As part of the campaign strategy the League has sent a sample Letter To the Editor to local League presidents to sent to their newspapers. 2. AIR QUALITYLaura Blackburn (Houston)laura2blackburn@earthlink.netSB 12 (Averitt) SUPPORT updates the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) and the Low-Income Vehicle Repair Assistance Program (LIRAP.) This legislation broadens the TERP-eligible projects and extends the TERP deadline to 2013. The LIRAP improvements include an increase in the income eligibility level-from 200% of the federal poverty level to 300%, an increase the reimbursements for the replacement of old, heavily-polluting vehicles and the purchase of hybrids. It increases the replacement amount from $1,000 to $2,500 with an additional $1,000 for the purchase of a hybrid. The bill also has some energy efficiency standards. It was filed on February 15, referred to the Senate Natural Resources Committee on February 26, and is set for hearing on March 1. LWV-TX presented comments in support of the bill. The Senate Natural Resources Committee has adopted a rule that requires voting the week after a bill is presented. SB 12 will, therefore be voted upon by the committee on March 13. New Information: SB 12 PASSED the Senate on March 21 and a hearing was held in the House Committee on Environmental Regulation of April 10. HB 1740 (Cohen) SUPPORT requires that the TCEQ cannot renew an existing permit if the facility is permitted to emit an air contaminant that has the potential to produce adverse health effects or odors and is listed on the commission’s air pollutant watch list for a specified geographic area in which the facility is located. Filed 2/21/07 and referred to the House Environmental Regulation Committee on February 26, 2007. HB 2143 (Rodriquez) SUPPORT is entitled the “Texas Global Warming Solutions Act,” and is similar to SB 945 by Senator Rodney Ellis. Both bills would establish a baseline corresponding to the greenhouse gas emissions released in 1990. Rules would then be adopted to reduce current and future greenhouse gas emissions to that level by 2020 in Rodriquez’ bill and 2021 in Ellis’ bill. Both bills require a plan for achieving the “maximum technologically feasible and cost effective reductions.” Filed 2/27/07 and referred to the House Environmental Regulation Committee on March 6. HB 2362 (Hernandez) SUPPORT establishes a “cap and trade” program for greenhouse gas emissions similar to the December 20, 2005 “Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative” established in the northeast region of the United States. Filed 3/2/2007 and referred to the House Environmental Regulation Committee on 3/8/07. HB 2363 (Hernandez) SUPPORT requires TCEQ to establish an air pollutant watch list to identify each air contaminant, which by individual or cumulative emissions may cause short-term or long-term adverse human health effects or odors in the area. This list is to be based on federal or state ambient air quality standards or effects screening levels. Filed 3/2/07 and referred to the House Environmental Regulation Committee on 3/8/07. This is a companion to SB 1924 by Senator Gallegos. HB 2388 (Anchia) SUPPORT requires those electric generating plants within 125 miles of a non-attainment area to limit the amount of nitrogen oxides for each megawatt-hour of electric energy to 0.3 pounds during the months of June, July, August and September. Filed 3/2/07 and referred to the House Environmental Regulation Committee on 3/8/07. HB 2475 (Hochberg) SUPPORT is the most comprehensive bill filed thus far on air toxics. It sets ambient air standards (not just effects screening levels which are essentially unenforceable) for the following “priority air contaminants”: benzene, 1,3 butadiene, diesel particulate matter, ethylene dichloride, and nickel. It requires the TCEQ to establish a “Toxic Hotspots Pilot Program” whereby the TCEQ shall designate certain geographic areas in Texas as toxic hotspots. These designations are to be made no later than December 31, 2007. The Commission shall then take cooperative actions to ensure that the priority air contaminants fall within the standards. If this is not successful, the TCEQ may take any additional actions necessary to achieve the standards. Filed 3/5/07. SB 945 (Ellis) SUPPORT is entitled the “Texas Global Warming Solutions Act” and, as noted above, is similar to HB 2143 by Rodriguez. In addition, however, it establishes an “Environmental Justice Advisory Committee” to advise the TCEQ in developing the comprehensive plan for greenhouse gases and in implementing the Act. It also establishes an Economic and Technological Advancement Advisory Committee to advise the TCEQ on activities that will facilitate investment in and implementation of technological research and development opportunities for the purpose of assisting in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Filed 2/27/07 and referred to the Senate Natural Resources Committee on 3/7/07.NEW BILLS AND INFORMATION HB 2642 (Noriega) SUPPORT relates to fence-line monitoring of air toxics. The owner or operator of a facility would do the monitoring with a third party conducting audits. The benefit to the owner/operator includes various considerations from TCEQ including prioritization of permit review, a reduction in the number of scheduled investigations for those with an above-average history of compliance, and a single point of contact at the TCEQ. Referred to the House Committee on Environmental Regulation on March 13. HB 2722 (Thompson) SUPPORT relates to establishing an air pollutant watch list by TCEQ including air contaminants which are governed by either state or federal standards which may have adverse health effects or odors. Geographic areas which may be so affected must be identified. Referred to the House Committee on Environmental Regulation on March 14. HB 2847 (Anderson) SUPPORT requires owners/operators of electric generating facilities to report to the TCEQ whether the cumulative emissions of a facility will affect public health and property within 100 miles of the facility. Emissions to be reviewed include mercury, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Environmental Regulation on March 14 and a hearing was scheduled on April 3. It was left pending in the Committee on April 4. HB 2890 (Vo) SUPPORT also relates to establishing an air pollutant watch list. It also states that if a permit is reopened for amendment, the permit is considered reopened with respect to air contaminants. Referred to House Committee on Environmental Regulation on March 14. HB 2934 (Turner) SUPPORT requires that ambient air quality standards be adopted by TCEQ for 13 toxic air contaminants including acetaldehyde, acrolein, acrylic acid, acrylonitrile, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, ethylene dibromide, ethylene dichloride, formaldehyde, naphthalene, 1,1, 2,2 tetrachloroethane and vinyl chloride. These standards would apply to permits issued before, on or after the permits were issued. In developing standards, the pollutant cannot cause cancer in more than 1 in one million persons. Referred to Committee on Environmental Regulation on March 15. HB 3117 (Noriega) SUPPORT defines Effects Screening Levels (ESLs) to be set so that the chance of cancer is not more than one in one million. The TCEQ is to establish peer review for establishing the ESLs. Penalties are also provided. Referred to Environmental Regulation Committee on March 19. HB 3156 (Noriega) SUPPORT also establishes an Air Pollutant Watch List in which geographic areas must be identified. Referred to the Committee on Environmental Regulation on March 19. HB 3229 (Howard) SUPPORT defines Best Available Control Technology (BACT) as that defined by federal law. This is omitted in the definition by TCEQ. Similarly “criteria air pollutant” and “significant source” are those defined by federal law. TCEQ is required to track and publicly post a list of emission limitations for criteria air pollutants, mercury and sulfuric acid that have been represented as being the best available control technology or lowest achievable emission rate. Furthermore, a permit must model a facility’s effects on concentrations of ground-level ozone in areas downwind from the facility including an area at least 250 kilometers from the source. The bill was filed on March 8, referred to Environmental Regulation on March 20, a hearing was held on April 3, a substitute offered on April 4, and the bill was left pending in committee on April 4. SB 124 (Ellis) SUPPORT requires Texas to adopt the California standards for cars and light trucks. SB 124 was heard before the Senate Natural Resources Committee on April 10. The LWV-TX testified in support of the bill. Representatives from California spoke to the committee. HB 344 (Strama) SUPPORT is the companion bill to SB 124 by Ellis requiring Texas to adopt the California air standards. HB 344 was heard by the House Committee on Environmental Regulation the morning of April 10. The LWV-TX will present testimony in strong support of the bill. SB 529 (Watson) SUPPORT is the bill relating to emissions from school buses. SB 529 PASSED the Senate Natural Resources on March 29 and is scheduled on the Senate Intent Calendar for April 10. It should pass! SB 1855 (Gallegos) SUPPORT establishes a toxic hotspots pilot program. A “toxic hotspot” is defined as a geographic area in which modeled or monitored ambient air concentrations of one or more priority toxic air contaminants exceed ambient air toxic standards. Ambient air standards are required for 5 priority toxic air contaminants: benzene, 1,3 butadiene, diesel particulate matter, ethylene dichloride and nickel—and the standards are in the legislation. Additional standards are required for high priority toxic hotspots by 2010, medium priority toxic hotspots by 2012, and low priority toxic hotspots by 2014. The rule for a carcinogen is that a lifetime cancer risk should not be more than one in 100,000. Referred to Senate Natural Resources on March 22. SB 1906 (Ellis) SUPPORT is similar to SB 1855 by Gallegos relating to toxic hotspots. It was referred to the Senate Natural Resources Committee on March 22. SB 1924 (Gallegos) SUPPORT also establishes an Air Pollutant Watch List for various geographic areas of the state. These air pollutants are those that TCEQ determines from federal or state ambient air quality standards or Effects Screening Levels (ESLs) will cause short- or long-term health effects. Referred to Senate Natural Resources Committee on March 22.
3. RECORDED VOTESLinda Camin (Dallas)lrcamin@tx.rr.comThe House Committee on State Affairs has voted out HB 83 (Branch) to require recorded votes by each house on final passage of all bills and to publish the recorded votes on the Internet. A companion bill, HJR 19 (Branch), proposes a constitutional amendment with the same requirements. Our Capitol Corp representative for Recorded Votes, Karen Rankin, did a wonderful job of presenting League testimony at the hearing on March 5th. STEP 1 has been achieved. Now we need to get this bill voted on by the entire House of Representatives. Please contact House Speaker Tom Craddick and the members of the Calendars Committee and urge them to schedule a vote on HB 83 (Branch) and HJR 19 (Branch) as soon as possible. The League’s preference is for HJR 19 (Branch) which proposes a constitutional amendment. It appears that there are enough votes in the House to pass legislation to routinely record votes. Speaker of the House, Tom Craddick, who opposed recorded votes in the last legislature, is now on the record as saying he will schedule a floor vote “if the members want it.” With the Legislature
only in session until May 28th, it is imperative that we help
keep this legislation moving. The media are doing their part; editorials and
articles on recorded votes have appeared in the Austin American Statesman,
Dallas Morning News, Midland Reporter-Telegram, and others we may not have
heard about. Legislators still need to hear the voices of voters. Thank you
for all you are doing. 4. JUVENILE JUSTICEJayne Krawietz (Midland)jkrawietz@cox.netThe sex abuse scandal at the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) has resulted in a flurry of legislative activity. We have reports that lawsuits are forthcoming, which may influence what happens legislatively. There are several bills pending in the House Corrections Committee, all of which seek to prevent some of the problems at TYC. Although there are many important aspects to a solution, one of the most important is independent oversight. Two bills establish an Inspector General for the commission, but under the auspices of the TYC. We believe that an Inspector General must not be affiliated with the Commission. HB 427 (Madden) SUPPORT This bill allows a DA or County Attorney in counties with TYC facilities to request a special prosecution unit to prosecute crimes committed on TYC property. One of the reasons given for the inaction at the Pyote State School was that no one claimed jurisdiction. HB 2335 (Castro) OPPOSE Although this bill calls for increased guard training, it calls for the TYC to establish its own Inspector General. We would support this bill if the inspector would be independent from the Commission. HB 3309 (Bolton) SUPPORT This allows advocacy groups to provide information and support for sexual assault victims living in TYC facilities. HB 3521 (Bolton) OPPOSE Again, the establishment of an independent inspector is what this bill needs. The rest of the bill includes excluding those convicted of crimes against children from working with children at TYC facilities, prohibiting individual oversight over a group of children, notification of parents of children’s rights, and the posting of those rights in TYC facilities. These are great points, but without independent oversight cannot be guaranteed.
5. CAPITAL PUNISHMENTGloria Suarez-Sasser (San Marcos)gloriasasser@sbcglobal.netThe bills filed deal with a range of capital punishment issues from abolition to clemency. The Legislature has the opportunity to comply with the United States Supreme Court in the issue of mental retardation and capital punishment. A bill calling for abolition the death penalty, allows us to use our national position. The bill concerning the Board of Pardons and Parole is also welcomed, as it will provide accountability in clemency cases. None of these bills has a hearing scheduled yet. SB249 (Ellis) Support relates to the restriction of the execution of the mentally retarded convicted of a capital offense and establishes pretrial determination of mental retardation. If either the judge or jury finds the defendant to be mentally retarded at the time of the offense and is convicted of the offense the sentencing option would be life without parole. A jury would not be informed that a judge or jury had determined that a defendant was not a person with mental retardation. The bill also calls for an appeal process to be given priority to review the appeal under this article over other cases before the court. Bill filed on January 19, 2007. Was referred to the Senate Criminal Justice Committee on January 30, 2007. SB208 (Ellis) Support relates to the hearing of the Board of Pardons and Parole regarding clemency matters. The bill calls for the presiding officer of the board to publicly announce each member’s decision regarding whether to recommend clemency and that each member shall sign the member’s name with the member’s written recommendation and reasons, if any for the recommendation. Bill filed on January 11, 2007. Referred to Senate Criminal Justice Committee on Jan. 30, 2007. HB745 (Dutton) Support calls for the abolition of the death penalty. The change in law would only apply to an offense committed on or after the effective date of the Act. Any offense committed prior to the effective date would be subjected to the law in effect when the offense was committed. Bill filed on January 24, 2007. Was referred to the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on February 7, 2007. HJR23 (Naishtat) Support calls for a moratorium on the execution of persons convicted of a capital offense. The bill would grant the governor the power to issue an order to prohibit the Department of Criminal Justice from performing executions on or after the effective date and until the order is revoked. In addition we would like to see added to this bill a study of the capital punishment system conducted by the state. Referred to the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on February 6, 2007. SJR21 (Shapeleigh) Support is the companion resolution to HJR 23 calling for a moratorium on executions of person convicted of a capital offense. The joint resolutions if passed in both houses would require that the issue be placed on the November, 2007 ballot. This bill was filed on February 2, 2007. Referred to Senate Criminal Justice Committee on Feb. 21, 2007. HB 809 (Dutton) Support calls for the creation of the Texas Capital Punishment Commission that would study capital punishment in this state. The commission would concentrate particularly on issues of legal representation, certainty of guilt, and the sufficiency of appellate review of convictions in capital cases. The bill calls for the establishment of a moratorium. This bill was introduced on January 24, 2007 and was referred to the House Criminal Jurisprudence committee on February 7, 2007.
6. ELECTION LAWSBarbara Weinstein (Dallas)gewwendt@swbell.netLWV-TX is working with a coalition to address the many issues relating to Election Laws this session. There will be a briefing with the Senate Affairs and House Elections Committee Staff on the following items. (These are in no specific order)
· No Excuse Early Voting by Mail
On Wednesday, February 21st we signed in at the House Elections Committee in support of two bills. HB 186 (Hochberg) SUPPORT Relating to the regular procedure for not accepting voters. This adds written criteria to give back to the voter to tell them why they are not accepted to vote. This bill was left pending. Was voted out of committee as substituted. This requires that if a person is told he cannot vote, when he comes to vote, he will be given a piece of paper telling him why he was denied the right to vote. If the voter is merely in the wrong precinct, no written document is given. He is merely given directions to the proper precinct. and HB 384 (Kolkhorst) SUPPORT Relating to the use of direct recording electronic voting machines. This is good as far as it goes. It allows for a voter-verified permanent paper record suitable for audit. However, the funding for this addition is not addressed. This bill was left pending. On Wednesday February 28th we signed in at the House Elections Committee in support of two bills. HB 265 (Anchia) SUPPORT Relating to the registration of voters at a polling place and related procedures and HB 266 (Anchia) SUPPORT Relating to the designation of certain election days as state holidays. At the Senate State Affairs Public Hearing on Monday 2/26 we signed in favor of SB 90 (Van De Putte et/al) SUPPORT Relating to the establishment of a pilot program to provide a ballot by electronic mail to military personnel serving overseas. This bill has been voted favorably out of the committee as substituted and is on the Senate Intent Calendar. Companion Bill is HB 17. At the House Corrections Public Hearing on Monday 2/26 we signed in favor of HB 768 (Dutton) SUPPORT Relating to requiring the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to provide notice to certain persons of the right to vote. Also at the February 28th House Elections Committee we presented testimony in opposition to three bills. All were left pending and we expect a vote on this issue (probably a bill that’s a combination of the three) to be taken in the House soon. HB 101 (Riddle/et al) OPPOSE Relating to the procedures for registering to vote and accepting a voter at a polling place. HB 218 (Brown) OPPOSE Relating to requiring a voter to present proof of identification. HB 626 (King) OPPOSE Relating to the procedures for registering to vote and accepting a voter at a polling place. All of these bills are varying degrees of Voter ID and we oppose voter ID. VOTER ID. There was a Press Conference at the Capitol on March 13th, called by Senator Ellis concerning Voter ID. Mary Finch from the Capitol Corps delivered a statement for the League stating our opposition to any voter ID bill. At the Elections Committee on 3/28 they voted favorable from committee as amended on SB 626 which is a combination of the three voter ID bills that I told you about that was put together in a new form. Since there was a hearing on the old bill (even though different number) they did not have to have a hearing on Bill 626. HB 629 (SUPPORT) This bill relates to the consolidation of elections. It would lower the number of elections for the voter. HB 1463 (OPPOSE) This bill makes it harder to give assistance, when needed to voters. HJR 39 (Allen) SUPPORT. This bill is post-ratifying Amendment XXIV to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting the denial or abridgment of the right to vote for failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Now, my friends, this sort of thing has to be ratified be each of the states, and Texas never did this. SO…..this bill will take care of that! HB 731 (Kolkhorst) OPPOSE This bill relates to the use of certain voting equipment in an election that does not involve a federal office. Texas decided that we would support HAVA in all elections. This bill says that you can opt out of that requirement for certain elections. HB1642 (Ortiz) SUPPORT This bill relates to the days on which early voting by personal appearance may begin. This opens up the possibility of weekend voting. New Information: Elections Committee hearing on 4/11. NEW BILLS AND INFORMATION: Elections Committee hearing on 4/11 on all these bills. HB 928 (Davis,John)SUPPORT Relating to the deadline for submitting a federal postcard application to the early voting clerk. HB 945 (Herrero) SUPPORT Referring to the dates on which certain independent school districts may hold an election of trustees. This allows school districts to hold their election as a joint election if there is an election scheduled for the same day. HB 2823 (Bohac) SUPPORT Relating to provisional voting by a person who applied for an early voting ballot by mail. This allows for a person who requested an early voting ballot and did not receive it to vote with a Provisional ballot HB 3105 (Anchia) SUPPORT Relating to a program allowing for countywide voting locations in certain elections.
7. HEALTH CARE FOR OLDER TEXANSMaria Johnson (Austin)mmjohnson6@hotmail.comSeveral bills have been filed to increase the personal
needs allowance for persons in nursing home care. HB 52 (Chavez) SUPPORT: and HB69 (Leibowitz) SUPPORT: both increase the personal needs allowance to $60 a month. HB 446 (Thompson, Senfornia) SUPPORT and companion bill SB 427 (ROYCE) That increases the allowance to $75 a month.
8. CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM (CHIP)Julia Marsden (Austin)jmars80278@aol.comTexas has the nation’s highest rate of uninsured children, with one in five kids lacking coverage. The Cure – Cut the number of uninsured Texas kids in half by enrolling every eligible child in CHIP and Medicaid. LWV-TX is a member of the CHIP Coalition and the Insure Texas Kids Campaign. As a member we will be working to help bring about The Cure. The Coalition will work to:
a. Fix problems with the Integrated Eligibility System to prevent eligible kids from losing CHIP and Medicaid coverage b. Eliminate the CHIP asset test c. Eliminate the CHIP 90 day waiting period for uninsured children d. Deduct childcare and child support expenses when calculating income for CHIP e. Provide adequate reimbursement for Medicaid and CHIP providers f. Invest in outreach and education to ensure that all eligible children get the care that they need. HB 109 by (Turner and Davis) joined forces to submit a committee substitute for the 30 CHIP bills that were heard in the Human Services committee. CSHB 109 passed 8-1 and achieves much of the CHIP Coalition Agenda. · Children would renew coverage annually instead of every six months. Income eligibility would allow child-care expenses to be deducted when calculating income. The current 90 day waiting period for uninsured children would be eliminated, and Texas CHIP’s original crowd-out policy would be reinstated. · The asset test was modified: Families would now be limited to $10,000 in assets (up from $5,000), and the vehicle allowance was increased from $15,000 to $18,000 for the first vehicle and $4,650 to $7,500 for the second vehicle. Although the coalition had wanted the asset test to be eliminated and sought additional income deductions, we are pleased to see the bi-partisan support for the bill. The House voted overwhelmingly to pass CSHB. Thanks for all your help with the action alert. NEW INFORMATION: Last week the Texas house overwhelmingly passed HB 109 (Turner, Davis, J, Dukes, England and Pena) SUPPORT which was engrossed on 4-4 and received in the Senate 4/10. Additionally the bill has a long list of coauthors. HB 109 would:
The CHIP program is not for slackers. CHIP insures the children of working parents who earn too little to afford private health insurance but make too much to be eligible for Medicaid. To quote the Austin American Statesman, “this is the best deal in town”. For every dollar CHIP spends in Texas, the federal government pays 72 cents and the state pays 28 cents. The battle now moves to the Senate where it faces a real uphill battle! Lt. Governor Dewhurst opposes allowing children to enroll for 12 months. (The CHIP Coalition has included the re-enrollment form in material given to legislators and believes that this is a complicated process, not the easy two-page form described by some.) In addition to this hurdle the State is faced with the settlement costs of Frew v. Hawkins, a 14 year old dispute over the state’s obligations to children on Medicaid. Legislators want to complete the agreement before the end of the session on May 28 because it is estimated that this will cost the state over $700 million over the next two years. It is not known how this will affect the House budget and the money that will be needed to restore CHIP to pre-2003 levels. Remember to do two things: write a Letter-to-the-Editor of your paper stating your support for their support of CHIP, and take time to thank Representatives Sylvester Turner, Patrick Rose, and John Davis for their outstanding leadership on this issue. AND STAY TUNED!! SB 266 (Zaffirini) SUPPORT would extend the 12-month coverage for children’s Medicaid. To date this is the only bill that would accomplish this and needs strong support. HB 740 (Naishtat) SUPPORT and HB 1051 (Naishtat)/SB 693 (Uresti) SUPPORT would fix the broken eligibility system and problems with the private contractor. Policy changes will not address these problems. HB 740 would amend the Health and Safety Code and would require the Health and Human Services commission to develop eligibility screening and enrollment procedures that would automatically enroll eligible children in the children’s Medicaid program, using a consolidated application and address what should be a seamless process for moving from one program to the other. HB 1051 addresses performance standards for processing time, eligibility determination for CHIP and Medicaid and training and staffing of those processing applications.
9. CHILD CAREMarlene Lobberecht (Houston)marlene@lobberecht.comThe following Child Care Priorities vary in priority order from the Texas Early Childhood Education Coalition (TECEC): 1. Support Early Childhood Education Professional Development. Improve the recruitment, retention, training and quality of early childhood professionals. Professional development would indirectly impact the fundamental education foundation and improve quality care to all children in state licensed or regulated programs. The quality of the program is directly correlated to the quality of the childcare provider/professional teaching and caring for the children. Research demonstrates a strong relationship between the education, experience, and compensation of early childhood education (ECE) teachers and the quality of teaching and care in early learning programs. Despite this evidence, ECE teachers and aides remain poorly paid, lack incentives, face barriers to pursuing professional development and higher education opportunities. Childcare centers are often staffed by inadequately trained individuals and experience high turnover rates undermining quality care. The ECE industry is the eighth largest employer in Texas. Support Early Childhood Education Professional Development legislation. 2. Expand Access to Voluntary High Quality Pre-kindergarten. 3. Improve Safety and Quality of Care for Infants and Toddlers through Workforce Development Provider Reimbursements. Child Care
Appropriations: Child Care
Assistance for families on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) or transitioning off of TANF has been
cut by $275 million over the biennium. The decrease is in anticipation of
fewer families being eligible for TANF given stricter policy changes made
last session (work requirements, full family sanctions). The Texas Workforce
Commission translates this to serving 12,000 fewer children each year
through the TANF Choices program. In Governor Perry’s budget, he has included an $80 million increase in funding to expand pre-kindergarten programs. We are hoping with strong public and legislative support to avoid drastic cuts to Texas pre-kindergarten programs. This contradicts the draft Legislative Budget Board (LBB) budget bill prepared for the Legislature. The bill includes a $20 million cut to the pre-kindergarten expansion grants program and a $1.5 million cut to the Texas Early Education Model (TEEM) pre-kindergarten project over the next two years. HB 135 (Rep.Villarreal) SUPPORT Early Childhood Education: Would limit the size of public pre-kindergarten classes to 22 students. HB 164 (Rep. Raymond) SUPPORT Child Care After-School Program Grants This bill recommends that the education commissioner make grants to school districts for use in operating one or more after-school childcare programs for K-8 students. Priority is given to districts located in counties with populations of less than 500,000 and wherein a majority of students are from low-income families. The grant can be used to operate at one or more schools in which a significant number of enrolled students are from low-income families. HB 332 (Rep. Chisum, Rep. Swinford) OPPOSE Child Care Legislation: Exemptions from childcare licensing requirements. This bill describes characteristics of organizations and entities that childcare licensing exemptions DO NOT apply to. Examples include any state operated facility, an agency foster home, a youth camp, and a facility operated in or connected with a shopping center, business, religious organization or establishment where children are cared for during short periods when parents are engaged in other activities. HB 406 (Rep. Hartnet) OPPOSE Relates to license requirements for preschool and after-school programs operated by public or private schools. This bill, similar to HB 332, describes characteristics of organizations and entities that childcare licensing exemptions DO NOT apply to. Examples include any state operated facility, an agency foster home, a youth camp, and a facility operated in or connected with a shopping center, business, religious organization or establishment where children are cared for during short periods when parents are engaged in other activities. HB 482 (Rep.Villarreal) SUPPORT Would allow children to remain in public pre-kindergarten after they have been adopted from foster care. SB 50 (Zaffirini) SUPPORT Early Childhood Professional Development Partnership. The initiative will support the professional development of early care and education professionals by establishing a training partnership and career path within the profession, expand annual training required of caregivers from qualified trainers and accountability within licensed child care programs. This addresses the number one and two child care program priorities of the LWV-TX. SB 50 is also the number three priority of the Texas Early Care and Education Coalition (TECEC). Update: SB 50 voted favorably from the Senate Education Committee as substituted. SB113 (Sen. Van de Putte) SUPPORT Relates to the eligibility of children for pre-k. This bill proposes that a child is eligible to enroll in a pre-k class if the child is at least 3 years of age and is unable to speak and comprehend the English language, is educationally disadvantaged, homeless, the child of an active duty member of the armed forces, and/or in foster care. Further, if a child’s foster care status changes while enrolled, the child may remain eligible for pre-k.
10. ENERGYSusan Barrick (Lubbock)susanbarrick@sbcglobal.netLWV-TX lobbies on energy issues based on these LWVUS positions: · Promote an environment beneficial to life through the protection and wise management of natural resources in the public interest by recognizing the interrelationship of air quality, energy, land use, waste management and water resources.
·
Promote resource conservation,
stewardship and long-range planning with the responsibility for managing
natural resources shared by all levels of government.
·
Promote public understanding
and participation in decision-making, as essential elements of responsible
and responsive management of our natural resources. HB 230 SUPPORT Would permit insurance
companies to discount premiums on energy-efficient buildings. HB 2713 (Bonnen & Hancock) SUPPORT This bill
was filed March 6. It would establish an interim special committee on
electric energy generation capacity and the environmental impact of
electrical generation. It would be composed of chairs of the House
Environmental Regulation, Energy Resources and Regulated Industries
committees, chairs of Senate Natural Resources and Business and Commerce
committees, four additional house members appointed by the speaker and 5
additional members of the senate appointed by the Lt. Governor. This
committee would inventory existing electrical generation facilities and
study demand for generation capacity and availability of infrastructure
technology to plan for and meet demand for the next 25 years. NEW INFORMATION AND BILL Literally hundreds of
bills regarding various aspects of energy generation, distribution,
alternative sources, conservation and efficiency have been filed. Many are
procedural and address technicalities in efficiency contracts between
various governmental entities and the State Energy Conservation Office. They
represent the chaff through which we must sift to find the wheat of
substantive matters of public policy.
11. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/INCOME ASSISTANCEJensie Madden (Comal Area)j-dmadden@worldnet.att.netThe priorities for this legislative session are to support policies that improve the economic well being of families in poverty, to support programs that provide job training for living wage jobs, and to support equal educational opportunities from preschool to higher education. Several bills have been introduced to increase the minimum wage in Texas, which would help low-income Texans become more self-sufficient. The House Economic Development Committee heard these minimum wage bills on Feb 21, and all were left pending. In addition, we will be working with other LWV-TX program chairs to increase state funding of Medicaid, CHIP, and subsidized child care, all of which provide necessary supports for working families who do not make a living wage in Texas. SB 168 (Ellis) and companion bill HB 1406 (Flores) SUPPORT Would continue a current law which uses fees collected from members of the State Bar of Texas to provide legal services to the indigent. Both of these bills have been voted favorably from committee and await action by the Senate and House Calendar Committees. NEW INFORMATION AND BILLS: Several bills have been introduced to increase the minimum wage in Texas, which would help low-income Texans become more self-sufficient. The only minimum wage bill which seems to be moving is HB 49 (Chavez) SUPPORT Which was voted favorably from the House Economic Committee is awaiting action by the Calendars Committee. SB 168 (Ellis) SUPPORT Would continue a current law which uses fees collected from members of the State Bar of Texas to provide legal services to the indigent. This bill was passed by the Senate and has been sent to the House Judiciary Committee.SB 1096 (Janek) OPPOSE Would require mandatory participation in certain TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) employment programs. Under current state regulations, the only exemptions from work requirements are for pregnant women, parents with disabilities, and parents caring for children with disabilities. This bill would require even these TANF recipients to participate in work programs or be sanctioned out of TANF. There are other alternatives Texas could use to comply with new federal guidelines without forcing families dealing with disabilities off of TANF. This bill was heard on April 10 by the Senate Health and Human Services committee. If your Senator is on the Health and Human Services committee, please let him/her know that you oppose this bill. New Information: SB 1096 Heard by the Senate Health and Human Services was voted favorably from the Committee on April 10.
12. JUDICIAL SELECTIONMaxine Barkan (Austin)mlbarkan@aol.comSB 806 (Duncan) That would provide for a nonpartisan election for the retention or rejection of justices for the appellate courts and other judges from the district courts to criminal and family district judges. This is similar to the bill filed last session. Rep. Myra Crownover plans to file a House bill with similar provisions. The language of the bill will have to be evaluated to determine if the League can support the entire bill, or ask for some modifications to meet our position as it moves through the process. The bill has not yet been assigned a committee.
13. REDISTRICTINGNancy Wilson (Richardson)wilson972@aol.com“It is now clear that neither party is capable of fair redistricting”, commented Sen. Jeff Wentworth in his address on League Lobby Day. The audience all nodded in agreement. For over two decades, LWV-TX has worked in support of the appointment of an independent Redistricting Commission to formulate a redistricting plan to draw boundaries for Congressional and Texas Senate and House districts. The League is back in the trenches for the 80th session. One of the first hurdles in getting Fair Redistricting legislation passed this session will be for the House Redistricting Committee to schedule hearings on the redistricting bills and pass them out of committee. If you need further information on the League position, see the advocacy paper on the LWV-TX website. Redistricting bills filed to date in the House: HJR 22 (Strama) SUPPORT Proposes a constitutional amendment establishing the Texas Redistricting Commission to establish legislative and congressional districts and revising constitutional redistricting procedures. HJR 31 (Ritter) SUPPORT Proposes a constitutional amendment limiting the time in which the legislature may enact or modify districts for the state legislature or the United States House of Representatives. HB 112 (Strama) SUPPORT Relates to the reapportionment of state legislative, congressional, and judicial districts and the creation, function, and duties of the Texas Redistricting Commission. (Note: The League is looking at the judicial commission as a separate issue pending bills that may be filed for judicial selection.) Maxine Barkan (Austin) (For Nancy Wilson) The three bills already filed in the House on redistricting have not yet been given a hearing date. According to the House redistricting committee chair’s staff, Rep. Crabb, committee chair, has been waiting for the March 9 deadline for filing bills before scheduling hearings. Now that Rep. Rose has added to the list of House bills, we will look forward to an early hearing. HJR 31(Ritter) SUPPORT Would limit the time legislators could modify districts. SB 1068 (Wentworth) SUPPORT Has essentially the same provisions that were in the previous session’s proposal. The bill would establish The Texas Redistricting Commission in the Government Code, Chapter 307. It would provide for the legislative authority to adopt redistricting plans for the election of members of the congressional House of Representatives. The initial commission would consist of nine members: two appointed by the majority of the Texas House of Representatives from the political party with the most members, two with the second highest members of a political party, two from the Senate from the political party with the most members, two from the political party with the second highest number of members, and one appointed by five members of the commission who would be chair and non voting. Further provisions account for representation from a non-metropolitan statistical area, thus giving rural and semi-rural areas a voice. Eligibility requirements for serving on the commission are also outlined to make sure that it is as non political as possible. Although Sen.Wentworth was gathering supporters in the Senate, there is no official list according to the Senator’s office. SB 3777 (Rose) SUPPORT Companion bill to SB 1068 Neither of the bills has been assigned to a committee due to a backlog in the referral process.
14. REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE/WOMEN'S HEALTHJulie Lowenberg (Dallas)jmlowenberg@sbcglobal.netGreat News: By executive order on February 2, 2007, Governor Perry made Texas the first state to mandate a vaccine for sixth grade girls to prevent the sexuality transmitted infection , human papilloma virus (HPV) that leads to most kinds of cervical cancer. Perry states that his order “provides us with an incredible opportunity to effectively target cervical cancer”. Texas has the second highest number of women with cervical cancer in the nation. Last year, 1,169 new cases and nearly 400 deaths were reported. The vaccine generally cost about $360, which is covered by most insurance companies. Under the order, it would also be available to eligible girls under the Texas Vaccines for Children Program. Unfortunately several bills have been filed in reaction to the executive order. They would “preempt” the order by prohibiting immunization against the HPV virus as a condition for admission to public schools. LWV-Texas opposes these bills: HB 1098 (Bonnen), HB1115, (Howard), HB 1215(Hughes), and SB 438 (Hegar). The constitutionality of Governor Perry’s executive order mandating HPV virus for sixth grade girls as a condition for admission to public schools is being challenged. The Center for Public Policy Priorities has filed a brief with the State Attorney General’s Office for an interpretation of the constitutionality of Governor Perry’s Executive Order.
HPV vaccine update: The controversy continues over Governor Perry’s executive order mandating that all sixth grade girls receive vaccine, recently approved by the FDA, against the sexually transmitted infection HPV. On February 21, the House Public Health Committee approved, by a 6-3 vote, HB 1098 (Bonnen) – OPPOSE that would preempt the executive order. Committee members who voted against HB 1098 argued that the bill doesn’t just override the executive order – but makes it difficult for the legislature to institute a similar vaccination requirement. Rep. Gonzales (D-McAllen) stated: “I have been and I continue to be a strong proponent of this vaccine.” LWV-Texas agrees with that view.
The House Public Health Committee has also voted favorably on HB 1379 (Deshotel) SUPPORT that would require the State Health Department to produce and distribute informational materials regarding the effectiveness, availability and contraindications of the HPV vaccine and informational materials about HPV virus and its transmission and the continuing need for women to undergo pap smear testing even if they have been vaccinated against the virus. The LWV supports the recommendations for the HPV vaccine based on its position that “a basic level of quality, prevention of disease, and health promotion and education are recognized as important services but of lower priority when measured against the added cost involved.” However there is emphasis “that these services are essential for children”. (Reference: LWVUS Impact on Issues, 2004-2006, page 66) Two bills pending SB 110 (Van de Putte) and a companion bill, HB 215 (Farrar) would add the HPV vaccine to the list of required vaccines for sixth grade girls. Senator Van de Putte and House Representative Farrar applauded the executive order, but said they will continue to push for passage of their bills so that the directive will become part of state law and not solely dependent on the executive order. New Information: On April 10 the LWV-TX signed in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee supporting SB 110 that would require immunization against HPV of all female students enrolling in grade six and dissemination of information to parents and guardians concerning the connection between the virus and cervical cancer. The LWV-TX also signed in as opposing HB 1098 (Bonnen) already passed by the House, that would preempt Governor Perry’s executive order mandating that immunization against HPV be required for all sixth grade girls as a condition school entry. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Committee voted approval of HB 1098, as well as HB 1379. HB 1098 will probably be “fast-tracked” for a vote in the Senate as the legislative leadership wants to have time to override the expected Governor’s veto before the end of the session. (This is potentially the first veto override in more than 25 years in the Texas Legislature.) …Knowing the “reality of the political world”, Senator Van de Putte amended SB 110 to allow voluntary vaccinations with educational materials to be sent to the parents; as amended, the bill was also passed by the Committee. …Several senators have expressed interest in revisiting the issue of mandated the HPV vaccine in four years when its safety has been further tested. The Governor’s office, meanwhile, reiterated his support for a mandatory vaccine now. His spokeswoman stated that making it voluntary means that about 25% of girls are likely to get the vaccine, “which essentially is ineffective for trying to eradicate a virus. Women’s Health and the Appropriations Process: During the 2005 legislative session, via the Williams rider to the appropriations bill, $5 million of family planning funds were diverted from proven providers of women’s health care and birth control to an ”alternatives to abortion” program. According to the Austin Chronicle, “one significant aim of the funding diversion was simply to punish any health care organization that might, in addition to its other medical services, provide access to abortion.” In doing this, the legislature also punished low-income Texas women who need access to health care and family planning services, leaving 8,500 women without such access in 2006. Planned Parenthood says that to date, the “alternatives to abortion” program has received $1.7 million of taxpayer money – and has only served 11 clients, whereas Planned Parenthood and other proven providers could have used those funds to serve 17,000 more low-income women. SUPPORT:
RECENT ACTIONS: On Monday April 2, LWV-TX presented testimony to the House State Affairs Committee on a number of bills relating to reproductive choice/women’s health; all of the bills heard were left pending in the Committee. LWV expressed SUPPORT for:
LWV expressed OPPOSITION to:
LWV-TX had also prepared testimony in OPPOSITION to HB 22 (Corte) BUT, in a surprise move, the Committee instead heard HB 21 (Corte) which LWV also OPPOSES. HB 21 was also left pending in the Committee. Also on April 2, LWV-TX presented testimony in the Senate State Affairs Committee expressing OPPOSITION to SB 785 (Shapiro), the companion bill to HB 1750 (Morrison), discussed above. This bill was left pending in the Committee. On April 3, LWV-TX presented testimony in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee in SUPPORT of SB 837 (Watson), the “Prevention First” measure that is a companion to HB 1842 (Strama), heard on March 26 as described in Newsletter #6. SB 837 was also left pending in Committee.
OPPOSE:
SUPPORT Pregnancy prevention and sexuality education
The proposed law would promote Texas' family planning program which provides preventive health care to low-income women and their families; ensure accurate and effective information in the sex education curriculum of schools; and keep parents informed of the content of their child's sex education and provide information on how to get involved in their local schools.
Regulation of alternative to abortion providers and crisis pregnancy centers
|
