June 14th, 2021 – Second Reading Podcast

[0:00:00 Speaker 0] 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, so I 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 and welcome back to the second reading podcast for the week of june 14th 2021. I’m Jim Henson, director of the texas politics project at the University of texas at Austin. And today I’m happy to be joined by state representative chris Turner represented Turner represents District 101 in the House, which includes major portions of Arlington and Grande Prairie, up in Tarrant County, where I believe he is, as we speak today. He is currently serving his sixth term in the texas house and his second term as chair of the House Democratic Caucus, serve as chairman of the House Higher Ed Committee in 2019. And as chairman of the House Committee on Business and Industry in the most recent section. And is also, I think notably on the House redistricting committee this time around for his sins perhaps. And I’d be remiss in not mentioning that he’s a graduate of the University of texas at Austin. Listeners may well have seen him on the national, national and statewide media recently talking about the Corum break that killed SB seven the major voting and elections bill that texas republican leaders, including the governor, made a priority of the recently concluded regular session of the Legislature. And we will most certainly be talking about that. Mr Chairman, Thanks for being here As you prepare to travel. You’re leaving this evening for Washington. Right,

[0:01:52 Speaker 1] well, that’s right, jim. And thank you for having me. It’s great to be with you. And I am headed to Washington tonight and looking forward a couple days of meetings up in our nation’s capital to talk about the importance of voting rights.

[0:02:04 Speaker 0] So, okay, so good. So let’s talk a little bit about that trip. Tell us a little bit about what’s on the itinerary and more broadly, what do you hope to accomplish? Why you’re in Washington?

[0:02:13 Speaker 1] Sure. Well, I’m honored to be part of a group of several members of the House and Senate who are traveling to Washington this week. And um, a number of us will have the high honor of having a meeting with Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday. We’ll be talking about what happened in texas about SB seven and the events around SP seven and how and why we were able to kill that legislation at the end of the regular session. In addition, uh, there are a number of other members who will be up in Washington, and some of us will be on Capitol Hill doing various meetings tomorrow as well. So all in all, I hope that the House members and senators from texas who are going to Washington over the next couple of days, we’ll be able to collectively, we’ll be able to tell the story of what republicans have tried to do in texas just as our nation’s leaders know, they have tried it in Georgia and other states and impress upon them why we urgently need federal intervention to block state level efforts to suppress the vote. And specifically, we hope to ask congressional members and and the vice president how we can best help them in their efforts to pass HR one for the People Act and HR for the jOHn LewiS voting right back.

[0:03:30 Speaker 0] So let’s talk a little bit about the politics of that, because the politics of that are very, very dicey. Including uh as I read it within, you know, among democrats in Washington in particular, uh more moderate democrats in the Senate. Um you know, it looks at this point, you mentioned before the People Act, which involves not just a lot of voting specific voting and election measures, but also big structural changes to processes like redistricting and campaign finance. Um that and correct me if I’m wrong, or if you read it differently. It seems to me that that right now is a very heavy lift in Washington. I’m wondering. So, is that is that do you agree with that read? And second, you know, would if the democrats nationally have to default to the john LeWIS voting Rights act? Talk a little bit about that? And do you think that would be helpful as well?

[0:04:27 Speaker 1] Sure. Well, my view bottom line is that both are very important and I hope both past. Um I think they’re important for slightly different reasons. Uh H. R one as you mentioned is a very robust piece of legislation and it does address access to voting, which, you know specifically is what we need help with right now because we do expect some version of SB seven to come back in a special session. But it also does deal with campaign finance reform, specifically the proliferation of dark money that we have seen since the Supreme Court Citizens United decision decade or more ago. And it also addresses partisan gerrymandering. Uh all of those things. It’s important note, has a broad support of the american people on a bipartisan basis. No one likes partisan gerrymandering. No one likes unlimited sums of money, particularly dark money in politics and people generally don’t think it should be hard to vote if you are an eligible voter. So all those things makes sense From a policy perspective, HR one has passed the US House and things are more challenging in the Senate as they often are because of Senate rules. But what I hope is is that the democrats in the U. S. Senate will all recognize that now is the time for all of us to step up and do all we can to help save our democracy because democracy very much is under attack through bills like Sp seven through a partisan and worse racial gerrymandering that we’ve seen in texas and other states. So I hope that I hope we can help make that case with H. R. For the jOHn Lewis voting Rights Act. You know, it has not yet been introduced in this Congress, it did pass the House in the last Congress told it will be reintroduced at some point. Um, you know, that’s really important because texas is the voting rights act. States specifically was subject to the preclearance requirements under Section five of the voting rights Act from the mid seventies up until 2013, when the Supreme Court in the Shelby County case said that uh, formula is used to determine preclearance were outdated and therefore invalid and Congress has not yet been able to restore those formulas. That’s what in essence what HR four, generally speaking Rights Act, would do along with some other things. But it’s vitally important that texas frankly be subject to preclearance again, because texas has a well documented history of engaging in racially discriminatory laws and redistricting plans, not just in effect, but also with intent and that’s been the finding of numerous federal courts over the last decade.

[0:07:03 Speaker 0] I want to I want to put a pin on a couple of issues there. But so I want to ask you then, in terms of the immediate situation, it’s federal help at this point, in the form of this kind of legislation, you’re only buyable option right now is a texas democrat in the minority and the legislature.

[0:07:21 Speaker 1] I think it’s our best bet for immediate help. I don’t know what the 2022 elections hold, but in the event that republicans were, had been successful in the legislative session of passing SB seven, then we would be looking at the enactment of that law, which would have gutted souls to the polls, which would have empowered partisan poll watchers to intimidate voters and numerous other onerous provisions. And that would that would have been in effect for elections going forward here in texas. And so one way to stop that is to elect different leaders in 2022 who aren’t going to pass policies like that or who will uh also undo policies like that, that that already are on the books, but in the immediate near term and I do think this stuff is going to continue to happen. We need permanent federal support in place to head off these efforts in texas and in Georgia and florida and a lot of other states around the country. Because this is clearly a recurring pattern with republicans coast to coast in that they are trying to make it more difficult for people to vote. And there are a lot of tragedies to this. One of the biggest tragedies is that this latest push is built on the big lie that donald trump somehow actually won the last election, that we all know that he lost. And so for all those reasons, um, congressional and federal support in the near term is very, very important and, and for the long term going forward.

[0:08:49 Speaker 0] So I do. So I want to follow up on that by drilling down a little bit more. You mentioned the souls to the polls provision which would have established a statewide later start time for for voting on sunday. You mentioned poll watchers. You know, what else were, you know, from your perspective, the deal breakers in SB seven?

[0:09:08 Speaker 1] Sure there were a number of them. So, and talk just about the final version of the

[0:09:13 Speaker 0] short. That’s

[0:09:14 Speaker 1] ultimately what we killed. So, those two provisions, as you just summarized, um, in addition, uh, it would have granted the Secretary of State expansive powers over the voter registration process, which is very alarming considering the history and the Secretary of State’s office, the recent history of two years ago, where there was an attempted voter purge that was only stopped once federal court intervened. There was a redefinition of eligibility to vote by mail for those who are disabled, making it more difficult for Texans who have a health or safety issue concerns uh to vote by mail. Uh It would have um uh it would have also one of the most egregious provisions that we can’t get a clear answer how it got into the bill was this provision that would allow a judge to overturn an election without ever proving fraud. And simply, if the there was a preponderance of evidence that the election should have been decided the other way, which is a much lower standard of proof than currently exists. A judge could overturn election. And and that’s just, you know, so undemocratic, small d democratic, uh and anathema to our country and the principles of which we are founded on. It’s just really remarkable, and probably it is so offensive rages. That’s why you can’t find a single Republican who is involved in writing that conference committee report, we’ll take any ownership of that. No one, no one can say how that got in there, and no one, no one seems to be willing to claim any credit for

[0:10:46 Speaker 0] it. So, Well, so

[0:10:47 Speaker 1] those are some of the problems

[0:10:49 Speaker 0] that, well, you know, I don’t want to move, you know, I don’t want to, well, I do want to a little bit drill down into the end of the weeds in this. But I I am, you know, I have to ask, what do you make of, you know, the subsequent explanation that nobody can explain how that provision got in the bill.

[0:11:07 Speaker 1] All I can say is that I take that to me is the provision is indefensible, and no one is willing to defend it.

[0:11:15 Speaker 0] Okay. I think that that’s a that’s a fair response to that. Um you know, since we’re talking a little bit about the inside baseball of that, and certainly, you know, this process that the bill went through, which was highly unusual. I do want to talk a little bit about how this unfolded, because, you know, it’s another aspect of the discussion. You know, you mentioned the larger questions of democracy, and it seemed to me that, you know, a very local example of that at the state level was some of the ways that the House and and the Senate function this time. You know, I’m curious could you give us a sense of what the strategy of the strategizing was like in your caucus going into the last week obsession on this bill? You knew the bill was was brewing out there. Uh It had been sent to, you know, got sent to conference late. How did you process all this, you know, with the corn break in the strategy from the beginning?

[0:12:10 Speaker 1] So there were several layers to this. Um You know, we were fortunate in the House to have two outstanding members of our caucus be on the conference committee for Sp seven, uh Perelman, Nicole collier and Chairman terry Canales. And then the set aside, Senator Senator Beverley Powell was also conquering. And um and I can tell you that both chairs collier and canals worked exceedingly hard trying to forced discussions with Republican negotiators to address some of the most onerous provisions of the bill and frankly try to reserve uh some of the House amendments on the bill from the first time it came through the House. We still thought it was a bad bill and unnecessary bill. But those amendments did make the bill much less problematic. And so terry Nicole just worked exceedingly hard on that. But initially there were some discussions, but then seemingly everything went radio silent for several days in the last week of session. And so we were all pretty much in the dark as to what was going on in the conference committee reports. And then Congress committee report isn’t filed until saturday, literally the third from the last day of the session. And I think we were all surprised that they had waited so late so long, especially given the 24 hour bill layout rules at that time of the session. So so knowing that, you know, it would not come up until sunday. So I think there are a lot of discussions taking place about how uh, first how we could, you know, try to mitigate uh, some of the offensive provisions in the bill. Uh, and then when it became clear what was actually in the bill, how best to to stop it. And so look, I think, you know, on the Senate side, it should be noted that senators were prepared to organize a filibuster over there to kill it, but lieutenant governor was able to bring it up on saturday and, and so that, you know, simply was too much time, so that that was an option. But they fought valiantly all night long until six in the morning, uh, making the case against that bill. So it was a very fluid situation throughout. So I think by the time we got this sunday the day before the before signing die, you know, we had a long calendar of a lot of key measures on the docket. Uh, and so, you know, the first approach was, let’s try to move some noncontroversial bills or bills that have bipartisan support up ahead of SB seven uh in other words, you know, encourage the speaker to take those up and we wouldn’t objective, you know, republicans don’t object and that was important. You know, that’s how we passed SB three, which is the grid reform bill and because it wasn’t eligible to much later and there are some sunset bills that you know, needed to pass. Obviously there was a bill by James frank that included a basically uh Phil Cortez is Medicaid uh chip bill that is going to provide more healthcare to more texas kids. So all those things were really important that we get those done so. And then that had the effect of you know, also pushing the bill towards later in the evening. And uh we had a plan to uh talk to bill to death. You know, we had over 30 members sign up to give speeches and opposition to the bill. We spent more than an hour debating the resolution associated with the bill uh so called out of bounds resolution that has been passed on a Congress committee report like this and and you know, we never debate those things that long, but we we were succeeding in running the clock, but we knew we had uh members very willing to leave and I want to credit a lot of members of our caucus for uh really speaking very clearly that they were willing to do that and that was the right thing to do and what they wanted to do, uh, to do whatever it takes to kill that bill. And so a number of members had, had already left. And by the time we got about 10, oh, 10, 15, 10 30 it was clear that republicans were going to, uh, move move the previous question, in other words, shut off all debate and force the vote on the bill. Uh, and at that point, it was clear the only options as well as our stalling tactics were working. We had no choice at that point for the rest of us to leave. And that’s what we did and the bill died.

[0:16:30 Speaker 0] So the press reports had you sending the text, the members that they should take their keys and exit the floors. It’s a reporter’s really appreciated that is part of the narrative. So there are members were prepped for the contingency.

[0:16:42 Speaker 1] Yes, absolutely. There have been discussions throughout the day and we met a congress meeting before the floor, which we agreed we would remain flexible throughout the day. And, and there were a couple of meetings, uh, during the course of the day where we talk further about it. And we had, you know, obviously been talking on the floor throughout the evening about, you know, this maybe will be something that everybody is gonna want to do here, uh, if there are in fact going to shut down debate.

[0:17:09 Speaker 0] So, you know, to, to then move more closer. You know, we’ve, we’ve started in the president, we’ve got a little bit to the past, looking to the, to the future. Of course, the expectation is that some version of this bill, presumably with, with some of the fewer or fewer of the most offensive features that are now being sort of denied as you know, of mysterious origin being on the bill. Any word on, on a special session, What are you hearing timing? This will be on the agenda. You get any word on that? Obviously there are rumors, you know, rumors abound. I’m wondering if you, if you’ve heard anything. So

[0:17:44 Speaker 1] now I have and I hear, I hear the rumors and they’re kind of all over the place. So I predict it will be sometime in july or august, unfortunately, I’m not able to have a more specific because I simply don’t know that the governor’s purview and he hasn’t let me know or let anyone else know that I’ve talked to.

[0:18:04 Speaker 0] So we’ll wait

[0:18:05 Speaker 1] and see what he says.

[0:18:06 Speaker 0] So, you know, this will be on the agenda. How much, how much more of a disadvantage for the democrats at a special session when it comes to a reworked SB seven?

[0:18:17 Speaker 1] Well, you know, I think that the special session dynamic is different. I think, you know, in terms of just the legislature in general, you know, the governor has, you know, holds a lot of cards in a special session because only the governor can set the agenda or place items on the call. So that’s, that’s kind of a legislature versus governor dynamic. And so, look, if, if he puts, uh, you know, a similar election type bill on the agenda, and I expect that he will, you know, we’re going to have to see what our options are. But you know, what I can tell you is that democrats in the House and Senate are united against continuing to fight against any any legislation that will suppress the vote of our constituents in of any texas. And so like to see what exactly they propose, what exactly they file. And I expect that democrats are going to have our own ideas about how we can improve the election process in texas. We have members, as, you know, who have worked on this issue for a long time. And uh, there are a lot of we think proactive reforms that expand access to the polls are safe and secure way that the legislature ought to consider. So it would be premature to, you know, say right now, how exactly we’re gonna deal with it, but we’re going to continue to fight against efforts to suppress the vote. We’re going to continue to fight for efforts to expand access to voting. And, uh, and we’re gonna, you know, have all options on the table at all times.

[0:19:39 Speaker 0] You know, I’m I’m curious how I mean, and I understand you can’t negotiate with a knoll, you know, with an empty set with an unknown bill, you know, is your sense though, that one of the things you might have accomplished from the end of last session and killing the bill is thinning out at least a couple of the more egregious things, because that’s kind of what it looks like.

[0:19:59 Speaker 1] Well, I think, certainly with respect to the sunday, early vote times and the outrageous provisions to overturn elections, the fact that no one is willing to claim any ownership of that. Uh either one of those that seems, uh, I think that it would seem to be a good sign that they’re not going to pursue those outrageous policies. But look, you know, there are a lot of other, um, you know, bad things about that bill. And so our goal is to see that none of them passed. But, you know, certainly with sunday early voting and overturning the election, it does appear as the republicans at least in the House of lost any appetite for doing those things. And that is

[0:20:43 Speaker 0] good. Now, I, I know you’ve got to go to another meeting. I want to take a chance. Shortly before we, uh, we connected to record this market, sent out an alert asking texas on a july day and at least in Austin in the mid nineties, um, to conserve energy because the potential shortages as a, as a result of some generation being offline. Now, you know, I don’t, I don’t want to be an alarmist and say just because they’ve asked us to conserve that. You know, the wheels are off the cart, but I am wondering if you think it raises questions of whether the legislature did enough to address is to address the energy situation in the state?

[0:21:19 Speaker 1] Yeah, well, I think, I think the answer to that is no. I think some of the things we did our positive and needed to be done, and I have supported a lot of those measures, but I don’t think they went far enough specifically. No one just in terms of the winter storm, I think we needed to provide some direct assistance to uh, constituents, individual Texans who are out of out of pocket money from the storm, whether it’s through high bills or damage to their homes or, you know, having to throw all the food in their refrigerator away. You know, that those are, you know, you know, those kinds of economic hits are really difficult for people who are making a paycheck to paycheck. And, and, and so I wish we would have done something to help them more broadly on, you know, the grid going forward. I’m concerned about the uh weatherization requirements on natural gas facilities that um we’re a little too lenient on gas producers, but this current situation where we’re being asked to conserve and I do encourage everyone to conserve whatever her kat says to because regardless of the cause um it’s real we’ve got to take it seriously but it is very concerning uh and it is, yeah, as you say it’s june and we’re not even hit triple digits yet. Uh at least not up in the DFW area, although we’re getting close but we have a long hot summer ahead of us. And the fact that we’re already in a conservation uh phase is very concerning to me. My understanding is that there’s a lot of generation offline right now for scheduled repairs. Um And it begs the question of, you know, do we does ercot puc adequately schedule those scheduled outages where we don’t have too much generation off at the same time. So because uh some of a minute ago that there is, I think about 10 or 11,000 megawatts offline right now, which is a pretty significant transmission outage. So I hope we get to the bottom of those, those questions, but I think we have a lot more work to do to make our grid more reliable in the winter and the summer and particularly given all the growth of texas continues to experience.

[0:23:30 Speaker 0] MR Chairman, I have to ask you one last thing just because I’ve never anticipated having the chance to say this, but it seems like you and Lieutenant Governor Patrick are on the same page on ratepayer relief. You think there’s any chance we see any further action on that in special session?

[0:23:46 Speaker 1] Well, I I hope so. And, you know, I think that, I think it’s an issue as you indicate, you know, could well have broad bipartisan support. You know, I mean, you know, in the House, uh, I’m less familiar with what they try to do in the Senate. And the House, you represented Ana Hernandez from Houston filed legislation called the Power Act to provide direct financial relief to two Texans who were out of pocket money. And uh, you know, unfortunately, it didn’t, it did not pass, but I would be thrilled if that could be an issue we could address in an upcoming special session because a lot of our constituents do need help. A lot of people were out of lost money, through repairs or for other reasons because of the storm in the aftermath of it, for no fault of their own. And I think the state has an obligation to help them out.

[0:24:31 Speaker 0] Well it will be sure to see if the governor feels the same way. I know you have another meeting and you’re traveling tonight. Really appreciate you taking the time. So safe travels and many thanks to you. Mr. Chairman Jim

[0:24:42 Speaker 1] thanks a lot for having me. I enjoyed the conversation. Look forward to doing it again sometime.

[0:24:46 Speaker 0] Absolutely. When I also thank our technical crew in the liberal arts development studio at the University of texas at Austin, uh you can find this this second reading podcast, others as well as troves of data on the texas politics project website at texas politics dot utexas dot e d u. So thanks for listening. And we’ll be back next week. The second reading podcast is a production of the texas politics project at the University of texas at Austin.