June 13th, 2017 – Second Reading Podcast

[0:00:00 Introduction] Welcome to the second reading podcast from the University of Texas at Austin. The Republicans were in the Democratic Party because there was only one party chart. Tell people on a regular basis there is still a land of opportunity in America. It’s called Texas. The problem is these departures from the Constitution they have become the norm. At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over the male colleagues in the room?

[0:00:34 Jim] Hi there, Jim Henson Here again. And welcome back to the second reading podcast. I’m very happy to be joined this week by Ross Ramsey, the executive editor of The Texas Tribune and a Pao So thanks for taking time to be here. Ross,

[0:00:46 Ross] Thanks for having me in.

[0:00:48 Jim] Ross is a veteran observer of Texas. Politics, in a way, will switch roles next week. Ah, when this podcast will actually be the special edition of the Texas Tribune trip cast right about the soon to be released very soon to be released UT Texas Tribune poll. So that podcast will do double duty.

[0:01:05 Ross] So be careful how you treat me.

[0:01:07 Jim] I’m doing my best already. Ah, now this week I’ve invited Ross to talk about the biggest development in the last week or so we can have, Which is Governor Abbots. Announcement of a special session. As we discussed in the podcast last week, this was much anticipated. And and the governor ultimately took a somewhat inventive approach to the special session, Don’t you think, Ross?

[0:01:29 Ross] But he did. You know, there was a question of when he would call this, um and what would be the scope of the special session? And most people that were speculating about it thought it would be limited. And, you know, there was an issue that they have to cover, which is sunset legislation to basically extend the expiration date of a handful of agencies, including the Texas Medical Board, which licenses doctors. So that was kind of important.

[0:01:53 Jim] That became the headline in waterways.

[0:01:55 Ross] And that was and that was the must do bill that the Legislature didn’t do. And then there were other bills that were a political importance to various players. And there was a lot of speculation about which of those the governor wouldn’t wouldn’t throw into the stack. And he just threw all the spaghetti at the wall he threw up. You know, he said if you passed it once the Senate, where the must do legislation failed. Once the Senate passes the sunset legislation, I’m gonna add 19 measures to the call

[0:02:22 Jim] I call that kind of the kitchen sink pole or the kitchen sink. Special session.

[0:02:26 Ross] Knock yourself out. So you have 30 days to handle 20 issues that you could not handle in 140 days. Go

[0:02:33 Jim] right. And if we look a little more closely at that at that list, it was uninterested ing combination of things that had come up in the regular session, but also things that had had kind of low to zero profile. Um, you know, things like a teacher pay raise. Um, you know some of the measures aimed at schools, a school giving school, finance administrators more flexibility and teacher hiring. That stuff was out there, but it wasn’t very big. On the other hand, he put school finance reform on there, which had been big in the house. He put

[0:03:09 Ross] he kind of put it on. He said we should do a study. He kind of took the Senate’s approach to the House of school finance,

[0:03:14 Jim] right, but gets to say he did. So he’s doing check

[0:03:17 Ross] a box, right?

[0:03:18 Jim] Right. And then a whole host of other things. What really stuck out for you about the list than what was on there?

[0:03:24 Ross] Well, you know, a couple themes, You know, the one that was odd was the teacher pay raise its $1000 per teacher pay raise. There are roughly 340,000 teachers public school teachers in Texas. So the quick back of the envelope on this is that 600 to $700 million over the course of a two year budget, they don’t have 600 to $700 million. So the governor said when he laid this out, it was we should do this. It’s not apparent the state has the money. It’s if you asked local school districts that they have the money, they’ll say, Heck, no, we don’t have the money. Is that one? That was kind of odd.

[0:03:58 Jim] Well, the governor did say I mean, in a way, he did, and he did this and he did this in a few places here. I think he took a kind of conservative approach to a liberal item, right? Cause he also did say Well, on what we should do is we’re not gonna come up with extra money in the budget. They should just cut waste an administrative costs in the schools. And that’s a classic conservative approach to the public education.

[0:04:21 Ross] It’s a bit of Harry Potter, you know, you want to wave a wand and, you know, have six or $700 million appear. And then, you know, if you raised teacher pay 11 time, you raises the next time in the next time in the next time. That’s an ongoing thing. Okay, so the second thing might point out, is the and you mentioned it is the local control issue. You know, Greg Abbott has been talking for a long time about centering government around the States. You know, the federal government has too much power. He’s talked about a convention of states where the states would take on some of the things that the federal government does that he believes were properly in the hands of the States. That it’s, um, to Washington Directed ought to be more of a federation, and his second piece of that which he’s you know, is becoming clearer and clearer. Now, you know, since he got elected in 2014 is that thesis It ease, and the counties and special districts in the state derive their powers from the state and that some of that power needs to be reinvested in Austin and taken back from cities and counties that have, you know, in various points of view, run amok,

[0:05:24 Jim] reinvested in state government and

[0:05:26 Ross] right, Right, So, you know, so state government would take up some of the powers that it has doled out to cities and counties and would draw down some of the powers that it has that the federal government has unfairly taken from the states. So the big scheme would make the Austen’s and the Sacramento’s in the Albanese more powerful.

[0:05:44 Jim] And it’s an interesting I mean, I think a lot of opponents of the move to sort of act against state local autonomy have cried hypocrisy about this because they see it as well. You don’t like a no overweening federal government, but you’re fine with a state government that can preempt localities. But there is something of a basis for this approach. in the Texas Constitution.

[0:06:09 Ross] Well, there is a basis for the approach. There’s also, you know, this is also recent history. You know, five minutes ago, you heard and Richard say in the in the intro. This was a two party state and they were all Democrats. And when the Republicans who are now the two parties in Texas, we’re taking that back they started at the local level, and they were arguing as they were trying to take county commissioner seats and City Council seats, mayors, jobs that you know that the important part of government was local. And that’s where they started this line. And now that their in state government, now that they’ve worked their way up and they’re in control of the government and have been for a couple of decades, they still have vestiges of this anti government of the government closest to the people. All of that rhetoric is still in there, but now they’ve got an overarching view of how things ought to work now that they’re in control. Not necessarily the same thing you say when you’re trying to grab control.

[0:07:00 Jim] Yeah. I mean, it’s one of the most interesting things going on right now. I think in state politics from, ah, kind of structural perspective, the big arc of things because, as you say, that was that there was a political logic and rationale to these arguments about local autonomy and local control that also resonated with states history. I mean, you know, we think about Texas is a frontier state, you know, small government, you know, the Republican Party didn’t invent the small government impulse in Texas. It’s pretty deeply rooted in the culture. Nor did they invent the idea that, you know, people should that are close. You say their close to their government should have a lot of, you know, the should have a love that should be a means of control over their lives. Um, but now there is a different competing logic. You know, if you will on the ground, given that you know, the big urban centers, the big entities in local government that have the most impact on the most people are the municipal and county governments in the major urban centres, and that’s where the vast majority of people live. But it’s also where the vast majority of Democrats have the most political power,

[0:08:07 Ross] right? Doesn’t the blue spots and you know, the blue spots? You know, the phrase you hear over and over rhetorically is we don’t need a patchwork of laws across the state as you cross invisible city lines. And this one allows, you know, texting while driving. And this one doesn’t or this one does in that circumstance. But that one doesn’t

[0:08:25 Jim] write a diary in an uber

[0:08:26 Ross] ride, sharing an uber and on and on. And they’ve gone to the extent, interestingly, of overruling voters in a couple of cases. Ride sharing is an example of this in Austin. The fracking ordinance in Denton that passed a couple of years ago was overruled by the Legislature after voters approved it. So they’re not afraid to get, you know, right up in voters grills about this stuff. Then the third thing that I would say is sort of ah, theme in the governor’s list. Here is a set of big, um, conservative or movement conservative items that have been on the list for a long time. Bathrooms, school vouchers, um, property taxes. All the property taxes crosses over. It is more of, you know, it’s just a much a business Republican issue as it is right Social conservative issue. But those air there, some of the big things that we when we were speculating about what might be on the agenda. Those items are all here. So the Legislature’s gonna come in. They have to do the must do items first, before the governor will add anything else. And in the day the Senate does the must do item, the governor comes in and says, Here’s the 19 things on your wish list

[0:09:32 Jim] and that kind of brings us to the question of the politics of this situation in terms in the sense that at a very basic level, yeah, it’s not a very kind gesture by the governor towards the Legislature is a body to say here you need to come back in the middle of summer and here’s 20 things to Dio. I mean, it’s it’s hard not to interpret that as as somewhat hostile towards the Legislature is a body. And it’s a sign that, you know, you’ve got the executive branch and the legislative branch at some you know, high level right, colliding here.

[0:10:11 Ross] Well, and, you know, to enforce that idea. I mean, he was on the radio the other day doing an interview about this and said, You know, the reason we’re coming back is to do some of the work that the lazy Legislature didn’t take care

[0:10:22 Jim] and he used the word lazy.

[0:10:23 Ross] The Legislature loves being called lazy. This is, you know, somebody needs to send him a copy of Dale Carnegie’s how to Win Friends and influence people.

[0:10:31 Jim] Nobody likes being called lazy. Nobody likes being

[0:10:33 Ross] called lazy. So I mean, the interesting thing here is gonna be how the Legislature takes this long list of items and does as legislators do, manipulates and starts to the Senate wants to go fast on this. The House wants to go fast on that. Neither of them really wants to do this. The governors pushing for this but doesn’t really have any stroke over there during a special session other than his ability to list the items they should consider and his potential to use the threat. That says if you don’t finish item 18 you’re coming back for another 30 days. It’s gonna be a really interesting, um, sort of psychological war.

[0:11:11 Jim] Really. It really underlines how the governor can choose a spot right to really exercise their powers, you know, to the most effective means. And this is one of those spots where the governor is really in the driver’s seat in terms of issuing threats and being able to affect other actors in the system. As you say that, you know the ability to just stand there and go, Yeah, I think you guys haven’t really done a very good job. I’m just gonna have you come back again for another 30 days. When

[0:11:39 Ross] Bill Clements was governor, the one of the big issues was workers. Compensation insurance was a real sleeper. People were out there talking. It was a big thing to business. And, um, the at that time, two powerful factions were, you know, sort of the business lobby on one side and trial lawyers on the other side. And that was kind of the basis for a lot of big fights in Texas politics at the time, and it locked to this issue up. They couldn’t get it out of a regular session. And Bill Clements basically came out of Republican governor, first Republican governor since Reconstruction and said, I’m gonna keep calling the legislature back until you people either passed this bill or go broke in your personal business is just We’re gonna play sweat. They had six special sessions, um, and they passed a worker’s comp bill.

[0:12:20 Jim] And this is where that that notion of the citizens Legislature quote unquote right, really does come into play. I mean, the governor can say, Look, I know you people have lives. Presumably that aren’t all locked up in this. And so it really does give the governor some leverage. So there’s that level of politics that’s kind of the executive versus the Legislature. Another interesting thing about this kitchen sink approach to the agenda and the list of items that that the governor is set up as it had also just reactivates. And you kind of hinted this a minute ago. It reactivates the conflict between the House and the Senate and between the leadership in both of those chambers. Right,

[0:12:58 Ross] right. So school finances is ah, good, weird example. The school finance system is messed up. The Texas Supreme Court said about a year ago that the basically the ruling from Don Willett on the Supreme Court said this is as messed up as a school finance system can get without being unconstitutional. And when the Legislature heard the words not unconstitutional, they said, OK, we don’t have to do anything

[0:13:19 Jim] A lot of them just moved to be fair, Not all of them, but many of them just kind of okay don’t have to do that

[0:13:25 Ross] In modern history, they’ve never, um, done anything significant with school finance except under orders from courts. So they didn’t have an order, so they didn’t do it. So the House came in and they said Let’s put 1.5 or $1.8 billion of new state money into school finance. That lowers pressure on local school districts. That, in turn, lowers pressure on local property tax rates. A bunch of things happens down line. If only we confined this 1.5 or 1.8 million, and they did some accounting tricks and some things to find that the Senate wasn’t having it and basically said, You know, let’s do a smaller version of that that doesn’t do as much about property taxes. And they threw in a school voucher program that basically used public money for private education of special needs kids and the House voted twice during the regular session in various forms against any kind of subsidies of private education. Um, which is a pretty good indication where the House proper is.

[0:14:24 Jim] So it’s fair to say that the Senate should have had some expectations that that was not likely to be success.

[0:14:30 Ross] They had asked and been answered twice, and they’re asking again. So now the governor comes back in a kind of a provocative move and puts vouchers for special needs kids back on the call. So apparently, um, the house is two votes during the session didn’t get through to either the center office in the capital or to the office on the on the east end of

[0:14:49 Jim] the capital. So let’s unpack the politics. A little bit of that for people that aren’t aren’t is inside. I mean, the idea here is that, you know, throughout the session we saw a lot of conflict between both the House and the Senate, the Senate being more dominated by you know what you call more movement conservatives, more ideological concerns, stronger voice over there,

[0:15:09 Ross] and the motor is Dan Patrick, who’s like the leading voice of that faction of the party,

[0:15:13 Jim] right? Which it yet, which is in part a reflection of the fact that Dan Patrick is in fact, of that movement as well. And it illustrates how the lieutenant governor has a lot of influence in the Senate. The House, a much more mixed bag still dominated by Republican speaker of the House, is still a Republican. But as governor, Abbott has pointed out, with a much a different agenda. Much mawr to some degree traditional business nominated, more compromise oriented, ah, Republican agenda in the House. And I guess my point would be the governor. This is not news to the governor. The governor knows this is going on, and he basically takes, You know, I keep thinking about it. It’s It’s a version of Jaws where they’re Chungking, all the fish meat into the water and just waiting for things to happen. You know, when you when you chum the water, you’re trying to attract the sharks and sometimes they fight with each other, and it’s hard not to see this as a purpose of move by the governor, right? I mean, part of his political strategy.

[0:16:12 Ross] Yeah, I think he’s smart enough that this, you’d have to call this purposeful, huh? You know, the only other thing you could call it is he doesn’t know what he’s doing, and I wouldn’t I wouldn’t go to that. Um, it’s got a couple of things to it. You know, These are issues in some large measure that appeal to the conservative primary voters that both Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick will be in front of on a statewide basis on March 6th of next year. And, you know, in the house, Aziz, you said, it’s a different mechanism. Joe Strauss is the most powerful non statewide official in Texas. He’s elected in one of 150 House District sees from San Antonio, and then the members, in turn elect their speaker. So he’s more reflective as a representative as a speaker representative, more reflective of the representatives of mentality riots is they send of a, you know, a particular group of voters. This list of issues that Abbott put out is pretty satisfying to those Republican primary voters who are so important in statewide elections in March. And a lot of his rhetoric right now appears to be geared toward that. Um, you know there’s been an ongoing question about Greg Abbott since he was elected, since he didn’t really have a primary when he ran for governor. Which kind of Republican is he? Is he one of the downtown Republicans or one of the church Republicans? You know which, Which side of the field is he from? He

[0:17:33 Jim] said t to produce broad distinction.

[0:17:36 Ross] Use my dad’s term for him. Ah, Republican himself. He’s done a pretty good job of having both all kinds of Republicans think he’s our governor Right now. He’s playing to the most conservative movement conservatives who the people who dominate the primaries.

[0:17:52 Jim] So with its set up that way, you know, what’s this gonna look like? Come July 18th

[0:17:57 Ross] you’re gonna pass some kind of legislation on this sunset thing, and there’s, Ah, there’s a weird little intricacy there. You can either just kicked these agencies down the road and say, You know, let’s reconsider them when the Legislature comes back in 2019 or you can open the whole box and do a whole sunset review of the Texas Medical Board and do a whole sunset review of each of these agencies, which takes a lot of time, which eats up the clock, which lessens the amount of time you’re going to spend on bathrooms and union dues and municipal annexation reform and all the rest

[0:18:26 Jim] so we could see a disagreement from Day one day one. Basically, the Senate could go in and start thinking they just want to pass with the kick it down, the kick it down the road, Bill and the how. I mean this would be the way the political logic would work out. His area of the House could say, You know, it’s on. If you’ve got some extra time, let’s just do this right,

[0:18:43 Ross] right. Let’s just roll up our sleeves and get to work on this. You know? We don’t want anybody. They’re lazy. You know, The thing that’s interesting here is the mood of the Legislature hasn’t changed. You know, you can argue. I would argue that the that the mood of this Legislature was really set and broken in some ways, when the house considered the Sanctuary cities legislation, I think it was April might have been, Yeah, but they’re in the last six weeks or so, and it was one of those issues where you know there are divisive issues that come to the floors of both chambers of the Legislature, all through recession. That’s what it is. It’s a big fighting box, and everybody understands that. And you have a pitched battle over this subject or that subject, and then you go eat lunch together or something. You know, it’s just like that was a tough fight. Put your arm around each other and go make up. Come back the next day. Sanctuary cities was different. It was personal, and members took it personally. In particular, Hispanic members took it very personally because you were talking about their families in large measure. And you were talking about you know, whether police in cities in Texas are going to be pulling over every time they pull over Latino saying, Can I see your papers?

[0:19:57 Jim] Right? Because the Sanctuary Cities bill, you know, basically provided for police to not be prohibited from stopping people to check their immigration status, prevents

[0:20:08 Ross] cities and counties and police chiefs and sheriffs from telling their officers you cannot check, right? Right. So it leaves to the officers whether you check ah,

[0:20:16 Jim] a great deal of discretion, really, and we come right down to it. Police.

[0:20:18 Ross] So which opens all kinds of issues that look like they’re going to be settled in court because the lawsuits are already out there, right? But the point I’m trying to make is that debate in the House was so pitched and so personal that feelings were so bruised afterwards that they never went out and had the beer afterwards. They never went out and had lunch afterwards, and it influenced a lot of issues as the session went on. In fact, the the same issue was the subject of a protest on the last day of the session that almost caused Ah, you know, a punch out on the floor of the house didn’t quite come to that. But, you know, there was pushing and shoving. It was it was right up there. The mood hasn’t changed. There’s been nothing to move to say. OK, here’s new information on bathrooms, and here’s new information on this thing or that thing. Come, let us reason together. And so they have six weeks to come back from the end of the regular session to the beginning of the special session, and you have to ask yourself I would ask myself, What’s gonna change here? That we would expect a different outcome on these issues or just a extension of the fight we’ve already

[0:21:21 Jim] had? Yeah, I would think in some ways it see it’s even worse because I think the the governor’s comments, frankly, have layered on a whole new level of antipathy. And, you know, I mean, in the governor’s defense or, you know, they could go back. And there’s been a series of shots across the bow, from one branch to the other, from one chamber to the other. Part of it feels to me a little bit of a war of all. Against all, that’s just a It’s a conflict laden political system. Right now, you know, there are serious divisions and contention among Republicans. And as you say, the the issue of immigration is something that really just activates partisan lines. And so, you know, no matter what you do, you know, it’s sort of like OK, so who’s gonna be involved in a pitched fundamental fight today? And then the governor sort of threw gasoline on that a lot

[0:22:11 Ross] of ways. Well, one of things that happens if you throw out 20 issues instead of one is that you get cross currents. And you know, it may be that the three major factions in the Legislature Democrats, Republican Group and Republican Group B right, um, a line differently on each of these 20 issues. And maybe that here’s how they split on school finance. Here’s how they split on property taxes. Here’s how they split on bathrooms and you’re going to see these shifting alliances and interests. And you know, there’s gonna be a fair number of legislators from each of those factions who are basically in the mode of Let’s just do the medical board and get out of here,

[0:22:48 Jim] right? And it’s unclear to me whether that will actually work. They’re gonna want to try, and I think, but I think with that will say good bye till next week and next week we’ll have all kinds of new stuff to talk about, and we’ll follow this issue. So thanks to Ross Ramsey for being here, thanks to all you for listening and we’ll see you next week. Second reading Podcast is a production of Texas Politics Project and the Project 2021 Development Studio at the University of Texas at Austin.