“All Politics is Local” – is it really?

Don’t cry over spilt Topo Chico. 

The air conditioner stopped cooling. The dryer stopped heating. Couldn’t hang the wet clothes outside because it started raining. And oh yes, my phone stopped working. Not a great weekend.
But I didn’t dare complain. Given the persistent gloom and anxiety these days, it’s worth a mental effort to note each little moment of good fortune, however small and fleeting. So when I accidentally knocked over a bottle of Topo Chico, and the toppled Topo fell to floor and didn’t break, it seemed like a pretty good start to the day. I’ll take it.

Having been spared the glass cleanup and a $1 or so of fizzy water, I thought of course about sales tax revenue (even though bottled water is exempt from sales tax), which made me think of city budgets, which reminded me of the absurd partisan political charade transpiring right now over the proper scope of state and local authority and responsibility. Read more in the Policy Spotlight below.

Some interesting things:

DFW-area mayors meet routinely to share insights and observations, discuss challenges, and explore ideas for how best to address those things that so directly affect each of us every day. I joined them recently for an important conversation about meeting increased needs in a time of decreased revenues. Recognizing that – by design – cities carry the burden that the state does not and often cannot, I aim to work with, rather than against, local government in my district. That’s not a universal attitude among legislators.

I’m not done with my efforts to discourage and reduce illicit sales of vaping products to minors, and to that end I met with various anti-tobacco advocates and health experts, members of the Tobacco 21 Coalition. Last session, my bill on this subject had a strong majority of support in both the Senate and the House. But hostile forces (not mentioning names here) managed to kill the bill on a hyper-technical and patently meritless procedural point of order in the House. They didn’t win, though. My new version of the bill will be stronger and more comprehensive, and we will pass it.

Yes, I’m still working on Medicaid expansion in Texas. In addition to several meetings, I spoke one-on-one with WFAA’s Jason Whitely as part of the Texas Tribune’s annual TribFest. Broad in scope, we covered what Medicaid expansion could do for Texas, the changes in the political environment that affect viability of expansion (including growing support from the business community), and the social, economic, and political consequences of passing – or not – a Medicaid expansion law. The case for TXMedX keeps getting stronger. Please take a look at my TXMedX page, where you can check out recent compelling studies on how Medicaid expansion would affect our state economy, state budget, and county health systems and finance.

Policy Spotlight: The Politics of Local Control

The thing about cities is that most people live in them. And they’re pretty happy with their city governments. So why, for the last few legislative sessions, have state leaders been so hostile to local government?

The anti-city crusade reached a new high (or was it a new low?) recently, when state lawmakers publicly announced their intentions to throttle local revenue for any city that would dare reduce its law enforcement budget – even during a revenue crunch. With sad irony, this comes when the state itself is making significant cuts to support for local law enforcement. Really. They even criticized the City of Dallas for proposing to trim police overtime, even though the City actually proposed an overall increase in police funding.

Having thus dispensed with the question of sincerity, let’s consider the call to ban cities from contracting with professionals to fix traffic lights. Wait that’s not it. Lawyers? No. Engineers? No. But many state leaders have called for legislation that would ban cities and counties from contracting with professionals to perform an essential function of local government: advocating in the state Legislature. Those professionals are called “lobbyists”. Companies hire them. Non-profit advocacy groups hire them. Individual projects hire them (e.g., the bullet train). And cities large and small hire them too. Always have. Should they? Maybe, maybe not. That’s a question of local, not state, policy. It is for you and your city councilmembers to assess whether hiring a lobbyist for a particular issue serves the interests of local citizens.

What we have here is politics driving policy. That’s bad. The idea that state government would review city budgets should scare any skeptic of big government. That the state would actually take over law enforcement at the local level … whoa (who’s going to pay for that, anyway?). Banning cities from contracting with legislative advocates is akin to banning companies from hiring outside lawyers, or banning homeowners from hiring tax consultants to help with protests. The whole narrative undermines the spirit of 100+ years of successful local control.
Pitting state government against local government is just bad policy. It results in an over-stretched state government that’s ill-equipped to handle local issues consistent with local needs and character. It tempts state lawmakers to blame local officials for state failures (like rising property taxes). And it raises serious questions about racial equity, as representation in cities and counties tends to be more reflective of local demographics.

We can’t have it both ways. The state doesn’t have the resources or expertise to run local affairs. If the public wants state government to manage everything, we’re going to need a bigger state government. I don’t think that’s what Texans want. I know I don’t.

The Anxiety of Uncertainty – Back to School (Sort of)

Remember the excitement of getting a new lunchbox at the start of the school year? My 1976 Bicentennial aluminum lunchbox featured a cartoon of a guilty-looking kid standing next to the noticeably cracked Liberty Bell, hiding a slingshot behind his back. My own kids generally lost their lunchboxes pretty early in each school year, so we resorted to paper lunch sacks. That brought up the paper-waste environmental issue. It’s a discussion we’re not having this year. This year it’s in-class or virtual, when, how, and how often.

For a closer look, see the back-to-school Policy Spotlight below.

In the news:

• WFAA News 8 invited me to share my reaction to the most recent spectacle of state overreach into local authority: threatening to interfere with the constitutional power and obligation of cities to manage their own budgets – including for law enforcement, which the state neither funds nor has authority to govern. This news segment presents a balanced look, in an area where the hubbub contains a lot of hyperbole.

• In mid-July Fox News asked me back, to talk more about COVID-19 shutdowns, taking care of people, revenue, jobs, and health insurance. You can catch my (exceedingly brief) remarks here. (Had the other guy not eaten up my time, I would have brought attention to the sad fact that, as one of the few remaining non-Medicaid expansion states, Texas is ill-equipped to deal with the COVID job-loss fallout.)

In and around the District, virtually, in May:

• The elections must go on. Anticipating a shortage of people to staff the polls, local high school student Sydney Watson contacted me regarding her initiative – Students Step Up ­– to recruit other students to train and serve as election workers for the November 3rd General Election. Way to go Sydney! It’s a serious need. Many perennial poll workers are in the age range of high vulnerability to COVID-19, and are understandably reluctant to serve again this year. Interested in helping? Here are links to information for students and information for adults, or contact my office for details. Applications due September 29, 2020.

• Our Virtual Food Drive benefitting the North Texas Food Bank exceeded our goals, bringing in food and supplies for a great many people in need. Sincere thanks and appreciation to all who supported the effort.

Back at the office:

• With less than five months until the start of the 2021 legislative session, policy meetings are in full swing. Over the past month I met with UT Dallas faculty about wind energy, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition about reform proposals, and regional pioneers about Texas’s IT infrastructure and regulatory regime. On the public health front, UT Southwestern convened regional legislators for an overview and explanation of their research project to better understand, contain, and treat patients with COVID-19.

• Earlier this year I helped strengthen the cooperation between One Man’s Treasure, a North Texas non-profit, and the State Department of Corrections. The organization works directly with men who are exiting the state prison system, providing professional attire and help with job interviews and networking opportunities. More recently I had the opportunity to donate 500 masks for use in their clothing site (along with some of my gently used suits) in appreciation of and support for their continued service. They do good, kind work.

Policy Spotlight: resuming school with the anxiety of uncertainty.

Who’s running the back-to-school-in-a-pandemic effort this Fall? School districts? The Texas Education Agency? The Attorney General? The Governor? Local health authorities?

Yes. And no. Over the past few weeks the TEA and state officials have issued various guidelines deadlines opinions requirements abatements enhancements restrictions and qualifications applicable to how independent school districts can “independently” run school districts. Meanwhile there is no resounding consensus among policy makers, educators, and the public. Confusion abounds and anxiety hangs in the air, for parents, teachers, and even – perhaps especially – school districts, as students prepare to head back to school either virtually or in-person or both.

Granted, this stuff is hard. There’s no manual. But let’s not let that stop us from complaining. It would be helpful if leadership and the TEA would:

• confirm that schools that close in response to objective health criteria developed in close consultation with public health officials, and that are providing virtual learning, will receive full formula funding;

• gather and disseminate efficacious and promising practices from schools and daycare providers around the state;

• commit to devoting personnel and resources to identifying and overcoming barriers to distance learning, most prevalent among disadvantaged groups and English language learners.

Meanwhile, here’s the status on some of the bigger issues:

School funding and finance. But whereas last session we had a surplus of cash, we now face a dire budget shortfall. Will the Legislature maintain the 86th session’s commitment to increased education funding?I think most legislators aim to preserve education funding (I certainly do). The question is, how? In the past the Legislature has responded to shortfalls with spending cuts and increased reliance on local property taxes. The latter option was rightly terminated by HB3. So if we don’t cut, we’ll have to find revenue. It’s going to be a scramble, and it’s far from predictable. Perhaps we’ll be rescued by federal dollars (not holding my breath), or we’ll manage to craft a combination of additional state revenue, programmatic efficiencies, and budget realignments (i.e., taking from one purpose and giving them to another). Can’t wait.

As for the present current fiscal biennium, rest assured that the formula funding for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years remains unchanged. (Yes, the TEA used federal pandemic funding to supplant the state’s current education funding obligations, but the amount that schools receive has not been altered.)

School start and COVID protocol. There is money available for pandemic costs. The state allocated (largely from federal COVID dollars) about $400 million to reimburse school districts for expenses incurred last Spring (up to 75% of total COVID-related expenses), $200 million to support distance learning (including the purchase of home internet devices for students who need them), and $100 million for PPE. Educators should stay engaged to ensure that the funding is properly disbursed and deployed.Since the beginning of July we’ve gone from:

• mandatory daily on-campus instruction as a precondition to state funding(!), to

• local health orders to keep campuses closed through Labor Day, to

• a TEA statement that that (above) is just fine, and that ISDs and local health authorities will have authority over when and how on-campus classes start, to

• the Texas Attorney General issuing a “non-binding” opinion letter (which in practical effect is pretty binding after all) stating that local health authorities do not have authority to close schools absent an on-campus COVID outbreak, to

• the TEA reversing its previous position (above) and declaring that it won’t provide funding to schools that close in response to public health orders.So we’re kinda back to where we started, except, since the Texas COVID experience isn’t going so well, the start of on-campus instruction will be delayed and funding will be preserved during the delay. Most schools will be conducting distance learning through Labor Day. After that, they can continue virtually, in-person, or as a hybrid, for up to eight more weeks (but more than four more weeks requires TEA approval).

STAAR stakes. To the great relief of a great many, the Governor temporarily waived the STAAR test for purposes of promoting kids from 5th-to-6th and 8th-to-9th grades. This reprieve from high-stakes testing will help educators give much needed attention to the many new challenges of this school year.

Closing thoughts. The tornados took 3,800 trees from various parts of Dallas. The Texas Trees Foundation is hard at work planting replacement trees. But it will take a long time for the majesty of a mature tree canopy to grace those neighborhoods again. Trees grow only as fast as trees grow.

The Feeling is Virtual

Work, visits to the doctor, ordering from a restaurant – so much has gone virtual.

Hunger, however, has not. And right now more Texans than ever need help feeding their families. The North Texas Food Bank is answering the call, and they need our help to provide nutritious foods to those in need. Please consider participating in our Virtual Food Drive. You can order from their wish list (at this link) and it will be shipped directly to NTFB. For those who’d like to coordinate an in-person food donation, please email my office at District16.Johnson@senate.texas.gov.

Stay well, and remember, 

In and around the District, virtually, in June:

• In response to the recent surge in COVID-19 cases in Texas and Dallas County, Fox News (no, really) asked me (seriously) to appear live to discuss Texas’s pandemic response. Catch my remarks here.

• The North Texas LGBT Chamber of Commerce hosted me and my colleague, Rep. Julie Johnson, at their annual Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion Conference for a discussion of our expectations and goals regarding individual rights and equal protection under the law.

• Blood supply in North Texas is critically low. Thanks to many wonderful folks in and around my district, we had a successful blood donation drive. My sincere appreciation to those who participated. I have to say it’s a funny feeling to catch up with friends in a trailer while wearing masks and watching blood flow out of a tube in your arm, but it’s a good feeling.

Back at the Office 

• More than 500 constituents called or wrote to us in June, voicing concerns and seeking information about the reopening of schools, masks, the closing of bars (again), driver’s license renewal, professional licenses, unemployment benefits, and other matters related to public policy and practical life in the midst of a pandemic. If you need assistance relating to COVID-19, you can find a Resource Guide on my website.

Policy talk

• I’ve resumed policy meetings, albeit virtually. The Greater Houston Partnership brought me in from out of town ($0 airfare!) to talk with Representatives Garnet Coleman and Senfronia Thompson about the cost of healthcare. I also met with the Interim Director of the Health and Human Services Commission (one of the state agencies charged with managing the statewide response to the coronavirus), discussed school reopening plans and state education policy initiatives with local school board members, and joined other legislators for numerous policy conferences with agencies, county and city governments, and school superintendents. 

Policy Spotlight: A Practical Policy Nudge from the U.S. Supreme Court

We often think about U.S. Supreme Court decisions in terms of how they affect individual rights, or business rights, or both. But this month’s policy spotlight shines on how the Court’s recent decision in Bostock v. Clayton County may affect the fate of certain bills in the Texas Legislature next session.

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court held that the federal ban on employment discrimination “because of … sex” (under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) covers discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The logic is pretty clear: if you can’t fire a man for being attracted to women, then you can’t fire a woman for being attracted to women; because the only difference in the latter scenario is that the person in question is a woman instead of a man. That’s discrimination “because of” a person’s sex. “Sex”, says Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, “plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

The decision has great importance to individuals, of course. But it also has interesting and perhaps important implications for the Texas Legislature. Every session, a bill is filed to impose a statewide ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. Every session, it goes nowhere. Although the Bostock decision renders such a bill unnecessary in the employment context, what about other contexts? Might the reasoning in Bostock be applied to state and federal laws that ban sexual discrimination in areas like housing, access to credit, and insurance?

The resulting uncertainty means that if we don’t pass a statewide discrimination ban, a number of lawsuits may be filed. A statewide ban could, perhaps, prevent litigation while also providing consistency in state law.

Those opposed to passage of a statewide discrimination ban have expressed concern that such laws invite litigation. The thing is, in practice they don’t. Many local governments have had nondiscrimination ordinances in place for years, without ensuing litigation.

Second, many feel that nondiscrimination laws may threaten their religious freedom. Here we run into the question: at what point does “religious freedom” – which we rightly cherish and enshrine – become “freedom to discriminate” – which we rightly abhor and condemn? It can be a difficult question. But we’re capable of crafting legislation that accommodates the distinction, if not perfectly, at least well enough to take us in the right direction.

Could this be the session in which the Legislature passes a statewide ban on discrimination based on the trait of sexual orientation? The Bostock decision provides a new practical context for the discussion.