Texas Primary Set for May 29, 2012
It was announced today that the Texas Primary will be held on May 29, 2012.
The first day to file an application for a place on the Primary Ballot during the reopened filing period will be Friday, March 2, 2012 and must be done none later than 6:00 pm on March 9, 2012.
Feel free to read the 2012 redistricting order in it’s entirety for more details.
Redistricting Update
Here is an interesting update from the Republican Party of Texas that might clear up any questions you have about the current redistricting in Texas.
The Republican Party of Texas has received numerous emails and calls over the last few days inquiring about the status of the redistricting lawsuit. It has become apparent as a result of these questions, that many of our Republican activists are confused as to what issues are actually before the San Antonio three-judge panel, what the Supreme Court decision actually meant for the process, and what the role of RPT is in this process.
This confusion was heightened by a wholly inaccurate story in “The Hill” (a DC publication), which was then reinterpreted and disseminated through email chains this weekend. This particular article and the emails spreading it, stated that the Republican Party of Texas was in the process of negotiating trading Congressional districts in return for (among other things) saving a convention deposit. These false reports were sent out despite the fact that the Party has sent out regular updates on exactly what was occurring, including one on Saturday that clearly stated “The Republican Party of Texas has not been invited to participate in these discussions…”
Understandably, this has been a confusing time for party activists and candidates. Among the general confusion, these sorts of emails and reports have heightened many questions, so in this update, the RPT would like to explain the current situation as we best understand it.
As a piece of important background to first discuss – the legislative maps were originally drawn by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor. Various plaintiffs’ groups (who include: MALC, NAACP, LULAC, Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force and Democratic elected officials) filed suit against the Speaker of the House, the Governor, the Lt. Governor, the State of Texas and both the Texas Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Texas, to prevent elections using the legislatively drawn maps. The state and the elected officials were named, presumably, because they are the entity that created the maps. As best as we can tell – the state parties’ were sued to enjoin the chairmen from holding primaries under the lines drawn by the Legislature.
The Attorney General represents the State of Texas and the elected officials who are defendants in the suits. It is his office that is charged with actually defending the State and its maps. The RPT’s position is that we were not even a necessary party to the original lawsuits because we did not draw the maps and are not charged with the responsibility of defending them. We also argued that there was no reason to enjoin the Party from holding the primary in the legislatively-drawn districts because the Party would use whatever maps became final by Court order. Consequently, at the beginning of the original trial in front of the San Antonio three-judge panel, not only was the Republican Party of Texas dismissed from the lawsuit, but so were the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House, as neither were considered necessary parties. The case proceeded to a trial with Attorney General Abbott and his team defending the State of Texas and its maps. The Democratic plaintiffs sought and received from the San Antonio three-judge panel, an injunction preventing the maps enacted by the legislature from being used in the 2012 elections prior to being precleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Due to this injunction, interim maps had to be drawn, and were issued by this same court last November in a split (2-1) vote.
Meanwhile, Senator Wendy Davis filed a new lawsuit just on her district, and again included the Republican Party of Texas. We have been seeking dismissal in that case as well, but as of this date, we have not been dismissed. The Republican Party of Texas has filed numerous advisories to alert the court that as they move forward in scheduling primaries, that they needed to be aware of potential consequences to the Party’s precinct conventions, county conventions, state conventions, as well as time periods necessary to accomplish getting out early ballots, complying with the MOVE act, etc.
When the Supreme Court agreed to hear Attorney General Abbott’s appeal of the three-judge panel’s decision issuing interim maps, the Supreme Court consolidated the Davis case with the other cases for purpose of their action. This move put the Republican Party of Texas as a party to the case in front of the Supreme Court. That is why the Republican Party of Texas filed a brief with the Supreme Court as to issues pertaining to the Primary scheduling and urging the Supreme Court for a quick ruling and action in the case. As noted in previous reports, that effort was successful and the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the San Antonio three-judge panel for further action.
The three-judge panel is only considering interim maps, not final maps. This is an important distinction, but it has been confusing to many for what it means. When the legislative maps were challenged, the three-judge panel was tasked with getting a preliminary ruling on maps because a final ruling could not be issued until all the potential legal challenges are resolved, including challenges to the maps before a different three-judge panel in Washington D.C. which is dealing with alleged violations of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
When the Supreme Court issued its opinion, it ruled that the three-judge panel had gone too far for multiple reasons. For example, the three-judge panel revised lines in some districts so as not to split precinct lines, and indicated that they did so for the greater public good. The Supreme Court ruled that the three-judge panel did not have the right to alter lines on this basis because the Legislature allowed the splitting of precinct lines, and it was beyond the scope of their duty to create their own maps based on the public good. Thus, a logical conclusion from this portion of the ruling is that the districts that were altered by the San Antonio three-judge panel, on this basis alone, should be restored to the legislatively drawn lines. We expect that they will be.
However, there were also challenges to the district lines on the basis of alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act – Sections 2 and 5 in particular. The Supreme Court indicated that the San Antonio three-judge panel could not presume that the legislative map violated those sections without there first having been a judicial determination of that fact. But the Supreme Court also indicated that the three judge panel could alter the legislative lines if they determined there was “reasonable probability” that the maps would be found in violation of the Voting Rights Act. To complicate things further, there is action in front of the previously mentioned three-judge panel in Washington D.C., which is determining whether certain Texas districts actually do violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Their ruling has not come down yet – but the plaintiffs have been arguing in front of the San Antonio three-judge panel to delay any additional rulings on the maps until that three-judge panel in Washington D.C. rules, so that final maps can be put into place.
Since there is no guarantee that we can get a ruling anytime soon, or get a ruling in time to accomplish a timely primary election, and since the Supreme Court did not say to wait on that ruling – the Attorney General’s office has been pushing for an immediate decision by the San Antonio three-judge panel. This is a position that the Republican Party of Texas thinks is reasonable and which we support.
One thing needs to be clearly understood about the Supreme Court’s decision so as to understand where we are in the process. When the Supreme Court ruled that the San Antonio three-judge panel’s maps were stayed, the Supreme Court did not reinstate the legislature’s maps, but instead, gave the task of redrawing maps back to the same San Antonio three-judge panel with the instructions to draw new maps in accordance with the criteria of their decision. This means that it will be the San Antonio three-judge panel that ultimately draws new maps, and they are still allowed to alter the Legislature’s maps if the panel determines there’s a reasonable probability of violations.
In comments on Friday, the San Antonio three-judge panel signaled that it would be helpful to them if the Attorney General (who represents the State and its maps) and the Democratic plaintiffs groups would get together and discuss if there is agreement on which districts there are areas of disputes over possible violations. By narrowing the number of contentious districts to a manageable number, it increases the likelihood that the San Antonio three-judge panel will be able to draw maps in time for an April primary. The agreement talks on this issue are going on exclusively between the plaintiff’s groups and the Attorney General and his team. The Republican Party of Texas has not been involved, nor invited, into these discussions as previously noted. The Party is told from time to time that the discussions are going on, and that they are significant, but it is not told the substance of the discussions. It is not unusual for parties to discussions to ask all the participants to keep talks confidential.
We are awaiting word from the Attorney General, in conjunction with the plaintiff’s groups, as to whether they can agree on which districts are in dispute, and which ones are not. Even after they report back to the San Antonio three-judge panel as to what they can and cannot agree on, the Court has made clear that any agreement between these two parties is not a true “settlement”. The three judges have been clear that the Court will be the only entity that decides upon the final lines for the new districts. The Court has also made clear that if the districts in dispute can be narrowed down, and if there is some agreement as to what is not in dispute by February 6, that there is still a good chance that Texas can have an April 3rd primary as long as the San Antonio three-judge panel can draw lines by February 6.
We will know if we can have an April 3rd primary by the end of the day on February 6th at the very latest.
As to a discussion on the state parties’ conventions – even if maps are not entered by February 6th, the Democratic Party and Republican Party entered into talks at the hearing on Friday, and subsequently advised the Court that they could still accomplish their state conventions (which both parties have scheduled during the first week of June) if the primary is held by April 17th. Since the Court previously indicated that an April 3rd primary could be held if maps were ready by February 6th, logic would dictate that if maps are obtained by February 20th, that we could still have a primary on April 17th. It is important to note, that the talks between the Democratic and Republican parties deal solely with the deadlines and scheduling of the primary election, not with the boundaries of state legislative or Congressional districts. Only the Attorney General’s office’s attorneys are involved in those discussions. Thus, the email chains that have gone out accusing the Republican Party of Texas of trying to save a convention deposit in exchange for district lines, are blatantly false.
As noted earlier, we are not even involved in the discussion of district lines. Furthermore, as was just previously explained, we do not need maps by February 6th to hold our state conventions on their current scheduled dates. We can get maps as late as February 20th and still accomplish these deadlines. It is the hope of the Republican Party of Texas that even if agreements are not worked out between the Attorney General and the plaintiffs’ groups, that the San Antonio three-judge panel would go ahead and issue maps by February 20th. It should also be noted that the Republican Party of Texas is not concerned merely with the convention deposit on the convention center and hotels, but rather we are concerned with the real possibility that there may not be a convention center or hotel rooms available for our 18,000 delegate contingent at a different date. The state convention serves our Party and our grassroots with the very real purpose of selecting the State Party’s officers, adopting its platform, and picking delegates to the national convention who will select our Party’s Presidential nominee. It is an important part of the overall political process.
It is the RPT’s position that a single unified primary still can be obtained sometime in early to mid April which would allow the state conventions to occur on time. It is also our position that such a schedule is not totally dependent upon any agreements between the Attorney General and the plaintiff’s groups, but rather, is within the authority of the San Antonio three-judge panel to draw lines and act quickly to expeditiously move these elections forward.
The State Party’s best guess on what will occur is that the legislative maps will be modified from the original legislatively-drawn lines by the San Antonio three-judge panel, but the modifications will not be as extensive as they were before the Supreme Court ruling. We expect the three-judge panel to issue new interim maps sometime in February. Whenever the maps are final, if they do not accomplish all the Republican Party of Texas’ goals of a fair map which meets the law representative of a strong Republican majority, then the State Party plans to move forward on its previously announced plan of action. That plan of action calls for all of our candidates to the Texas House and State Senate to pledge to support redistricting in 2013. This plan was authorized by the last meeting of the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC). In addition, the SREC has voted to place a ballot proposition on our 2012 primary ballot as a referendum on calling on the State Legislature to take up redistricting again in 2013. In the event that the maps are not representative of a strong Republican majority – we will ask all Republican primary voters to support this ballot proposition to encourage our State Legislature to draw new final maps in 2013.
For our part, we will endeavor to keep you fully advised on all developments as soon as practical. If you have any questions regarding this process, or if you receive any information through email chain which causes concern – please contact us with any questions at RPT headquarters. This will greatly help us all to avoid erroneous information from these questionable sources. Thank you for your help and for your support during these unusual times.
Supreme Court: Texas Redistricting Maps
Did you hear the oral arguments yesterday at the Supreme Court?
What do you think the election map for 2012 will look like in here in Texas?
As you likely already know, the question at hand focuses on the federal judge panel in San Antonio drawing up an interim redistricting map before getting the green light.
Some argue that the redistricting is discriminatory. Was it fair to allot several new congressional seats to Texas? Are the minority voters being overlooked or minimized? From your point of view, are the maps unclear? In the end, is this even constitutional? You may want to check out what is going on in another state with mass-growth that is facing the same issues as Texas. Will this set the presidence?
We hope you will read the Supreme Court Oral Argument transcript in it’s entirety and let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Texas AG will Appeal maps to US Supreme Court
AUSTIN—Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will file an emergency stay application with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to halt the implementation of legally flawed redistricting maps drawn by a federal panel in San Antonio.
At issue is whether the interim maps imposed by a three-judge redistricting panel violate the U.S. Constitution and federal law, and exceeds the proper role of the judiciary. The State of Texas alleges the panel improperly rejected the will of the elected legislature and redrew the State’s House and Senate districts without regard to any established legal or constitutional principles.
Attorney General Greg Abbott explained that a stay of the election process is needed because “elections should not proceed based on legally flawed maps that are likely to be overturned on further review.”
Because the legally flawed maps could create confusion for Texans who wish to become candidates when the filing period opens Monday, the State of Texas is pushing quickly to restore clarity to the process. An expeditious decision is necessary so candidates will not needlessly file for office based on boundaries drawn by the interim maps that are likely to be overturned upon further legal review.
Why should the State of Texas appeal this case to the United States Supreme Court? Why should the State ask for a stay of the redistricting plan proposed by two of the three judges at the lower court hearing? Why does the State believe it can and should win at the U.S. Supreme Court?
So far, only one appellate judge has considered the redistricting plan passed by the Legislature – that is Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. He dissented from the interim Texas House of Representatives redistricting plan proposed by the two trial court judges, and provided a detailed analysis as to why the interim House plan was a stark departure from the law. The italics in the following paragraphs are words written by Judge Smith that graphically detail why justice demands the interim House redistricting plan be overturned immediately.
Judge Smith agrees that the interim Texas House of Representatives map proposed by two judges in San Antonio is legally flawed. In particular, he states that the two judge majority opinion “produced a runaway plan that imposes an extreme redistricting scheme for the Texas House of Representatives, untethered to the applicable caselaw.” Judge Smith goes on to say that imposing the majority plan “is grave error at the preliminary, interim stage of the redistricting process.” Judge Smith concludes that the majority’s“plan is far reaching and extreme. It expands the role of a three-judge interim court well beyond what is legal, practical, or fair.”
Judge Smith’s opinion is filled with points that support the conclusion that the majority’s decision is legally unjustifiable and should be overturned on appeal. Following are just a few of those points:
* “[T]he federal courts may not order the creation of majority-minority districts unless necessary to remedy a violation of federal law.” The majority opinion violated that tenet.
* “[T]he interim phase is not the time for this court to impose the radical alterations in the Texas political landscape that the majority has now mandated.”
* “[T]he majority ventures into other areas of the State and, as though sitting as a mini-legislature, engrafts its policy preferences statewide despite the fact that no such extreme modifications are required by the case law or by the facts that are before this court at this early stage before preclearance and remedial hearings.”
* In emphasizing how the majority consistently ignores the law, Judge Smith points out that “the majority’s general approach of maximizing the drawing of minority opportunity districts that satisfy the Gingles preconditions was specifically rejected in Johnson v. De Grandy.”
* The majority “engages in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering without section 2 as an even colorable legal justification.”
* “There is no legal requirement to create coalition districts (and certainly not one like this), even for the Legislature, and it is surely not appropriate for a court that is fashioning only interim relief.”
Additionally, General Abbott announced a significant addition to the appellate team that will be representing Texas at the U.S. Supreme Court. Paul Clement – one of the nation’s foremost appellate lawyers and former Solicitor General of the United States – is assisting the State of Texas with the redistricting challenge. Mr. Clement served as the Solicitor General of the United States from June 2005 until June 2008. In that capacity, he was the chief appellate lawyer for the United States and had primary responsibility for appellate arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court. He has argued over 50 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and has argued more cases since 2000 than any other advocate. A top graduate of Harvard Law School and Supreme Court editor of the Harvard Law Review, Clement currently is a partner at Bancroft PLLC.
Mr. Clement has an established history of working with Texas on appellate matters. He joined Attorney General Abbott in successfully arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol Grounds. He is currently representing Texas and 25 other states in their legal challenge to ObamaCare that is currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Interim Congressional Map
Interim Congressional Map
Interim Congressional map for the 2012 Primary Election were released this afternoon. The interim Congressional maps were drawn by a panel of Federal Judges in San Antonio.
Under the map all Tarrant County Congressional Districts were radically redrawn. The new HD 33 was drawn by the Court as a democrat district.
CD 12 currently held by Congresswoman Kay Granger, has been pushed into the southern portion of the county and into Arlington.
CD 6 currently held by Congressman Joe Barton will have a smaller footprint in Tarrant County, with only a small portion of Arlington and Mansfield. The city of Arlington will now be split among 3 Congressional districts.
The changes to the CD 23 in south Texas, puts incumbent Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep Francisco “Quico” Canseco at risk of losing his seat.
Judge Smith issued a stongly worded dissent which begins on page 14. Judge Smith acusses the Judges in the majority of “producing a runaway plan than imposes an extreme redistriciting scheme”.
The court will now accept comments on its proposed maps until noon on Friday before issuing a final version of the maps before candidates begin filing on Monday, Nov. 28th.
The Interim congressional map for the entire state can be found at http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us under ‘Exhibits for Davis v. Perry.’
Proposed House Interim Map
The Proposed House Interim Map (S298) was also released by the Court on Thursday Afternoon. This map is also very different than the map drawn by the Legislature.
Judge Smith also produced and Interim map (S299) The parties have until noon on Friday to comment on the maps.
The new Tarrant County map moves State Rep. Barbara Nash from District 93 into District 91 which is currently held by State Rep. Kelly Hancock.
There are 12 pairings of incumbents in Plan H298, including 7 representatives who previously said they were not seeking reelection (indicated by an *).
HD 2: Cain (R), Flynn (R)
HD 21: Hamilton (R), Ritter (R)
HD 32: Hunter (R), Morrison (R)
HD 33: Scott (R), Torres (R)
HD 69: Hardcastle (R),* Lyne (R)*
HD 80: Aliseda (R),* King, T. (D)
HD 85: Chisum (R),* Landtroop (R)
HD 91: Hancock (R), Nash (R)
HD 109: Anderson, R. (R), Giddings (D)
HD 113: Burkett (R), Driver (R)*
HD 114: Hartnett (R),* Sheets (R)
HD 133: Murphy (R), Woolley (R)*
Additional note. Reps. Hancock (HD 91) and Anderson (HD 109) have announced runs for the state senate. If they do so, that would reduce the number of actual pairings.
New Congressional Districts
New Congressional Districts-Tarrant County
New Congressional Districts coming in January
New Congressional district lines may mean you may have a new member of Congress. After the Census, lines must be adjusted to equalize the population in each district.
Texas has experienced huge population growth. One of the high growth areas is Tarrant County. This growth will result in new Congressional Districts in Tarrant County. One of theThe Congressional Districts is CD 33. We will also gain a small part of CD 25. In the new map, Tarrant County will have 6 Congressional Districts. The districts include CD 6, CD12, CD 24, CD 25, CD 26, CD 33.
The names of the current officeholders are
CD 6- Congressman Joe Barton (R)
CD 12- Congresswoman Kay Granger (R)
CD 24- Congressman Kenny Marchant (R)
CD 25- Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D)
CD 26- Congressman Michael Burgess (R)
CD 33- New Congressional seat filled in 2012 election
These new Congressional Districts are being reviewed by the Courts. Once this review is complete, the lines are final. The new lines do not take effect until January 2012. Your current member of Congress will continue to represent you until then.
Not sure who represents you now? You can find out by entering your address on the who represents me page. You can also find your CD number on your voter registration card
Need to contact a Texas member of Congress? Texas Congressional Contact list
Need to contact other officials representing Tarrant County? Tarrant County Elected Officials list
Who will represent you in the new Congressional District?
- Find your Precinct number on your voter registration card
- Find your Precinct on spread sheet below, to find your CD number.
- If there are *** listed before your precinct number, your precinct will likely be split
- Call our office 817.595.0303 and we will be happy to help you
New Congressional District Precincts PLANC185_Tarrant (2)
New Congressional Map
Current Tarrant County Congressional Map
New Tarrant County Congressional May
Proposed Texas Congressional Map
Proposed Statewide Congressional Map
A proposed Texas Congressional map was unveiled on Tuesday in the Texas Legislature. Before the ink onthe map had dried, Democrats filed a lawsuit to oppose it. The Democrats are asking the Courts to create
two Hispanic congressional districts in Harris County with more than 60 percent Hispanic population.
Republicans could add up to three additional seats with the map. Under the proposed map Democrat Lloyd Doggett’s district will become more Republican and will stretch north to the Tarrant County line.
Republican Joe Barton, whose district becomes a minority opportunity district, .with a 39% Hispanic and 12% African American voting age population. Under the proposed redistricting map, the city of Arlington is removed from Barton’s district.
The proposed Texas Congressional map gives also gives Tarrant County a new Congressional District 33. The district will include Arlington, SW Tarrant County, and all of Parker County and the SE portion of Wise County.
Governor Perry has added Congressional redistricting to the Special Session legislative agenda.
The Senate Redistricting Committee will meet on June 3rd. The proceedings can be watched online at the Texas Legislature’s website.
Senator Jane Nelson’s Capitol Digest
Several bills authored by Senator Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, are on track
to reach the governor’s desk. The 82nd Regular Session of the Texas Legislature
adjourns on May 30, 2011. Following are highlights of Senator Nelson’s
legislative priorities:
Healthy Outcomes: Unnecessary and duplicative tests
and treatments, along with preventable infections and medical errors, are
driving up the costs of health care. SB 8 breaks down regulatory barriers to
allow innovative health care delivery and payment models. The bill, passed by
the House with amendments, encourages health care providers to collaborate for
more efficient and effective treatment with the goal of healthier patients.
“Our health care payment system should not be based on the number of tests
and treatments that are performed on a patient, but on the quality of care that
keeps a patient healthy,” said Senator Nelson.
Medicaid Cost Savings: A pre-session report on
Medicaid spending by the Health and Human Services Commission highlighted the
unsustainable growth in this health care program. Senator Nelson passed several
bills that will save costs and improve delivery of Medicaid-funded programs,
including health care and long-term services. SB 23 is projected to save more
than $1.5 billion by expanding managed care, using technology to prevent fraud
and ensuring that individuals receive the appropriate level of community
services. It also restructures the payment system for Medicaid and the
Children’s Health Insurance Program to focus on healthy outcomes and to reduce
costs associated with waste, inefficiency and preventable medical errors.
Medical Privacy: Advancements in technology required
an update of Texas medical privacy laws. HB 300 was sponsored in Senate by
Senator Nelson. It protects Texans’ sensitive health data as more patient
information is kept in electronic health networks, and protects Texans against
the sale or unauthorized disclosure of their protected health information.
“This bill ensures that patients are protected from unauthorized access to
this highly sensitive information, and that patients have the right to access
their own electronic medical records,” Senator Nelson said.
Tollway Fines: After hearing from more than 160
constituents, Senator Nelson filed SB 469 to protect drivers from excessive
administrative fees collected on delinquent tolls by the North Texas Tollway
Authority. The bill would limit NTTA to one $25 invoice fee regardless of how
many missed tolls for drivers who pay within 30 days of receiving notice.
“I fully recognize that toll authorities need tools at their disposal to
deal with toll violations and delinquent collections,” Senator Nelson
said. “However, there appears to be a pervasive problem that has subjected
Texans to unreasonable fees that they can’t afford and that, quite frankly, are
disproportionate to their actions.
Waste and Fraud: Senator Nelson filed a package of
bills to fight waste, fraud and abuse in state government. SB 222 streamlines
the delivery of personal attendant services. SB 223 improves the state’s
ability to identify fraud and oversee long-term care providers. “By
ensuring that the state provides health care and long-term services in a
responsible manner, we will be able to serve the greatest number of individuals
with available resources,” Senator Nelson said.
SB 77 requires performance bonds for contractors who receive federal funds
through the Texas Department of Agriculture to provide food at child and adult
day cares. It also allows the Agriculture Department to do criminal background
checks. “These requirements will protect taxpayer dollars and avoid
situations such as what occurred in North Texas, when a contractor collected
funds but failed to deliver meals to day cares.”
Three other bills promote efficient use of resources. SB 74 allows
universities to donate extra computer equipment to rural hospitals for health
information technology. SB 71 eliminates requirements for various health and
human services reports that are no longer needed or redundant; SB 1179 does the
same across state agencies and institutions of higher education.
Reforming Child Protective Services: SB 218
redesigns the state’s foster care system to help displaced children remain in
their home communities where they have access to valuable support networks. SB
219 better coordinates mental health services for abused and neglected
children. “Especially at a time when we need to make every penny count, it
is vital that our resources are being allocated into systems that truly support
children and help them grow up to become responsible adults.”
Domestic Violence: SB 82 expands the definition of
stalking to include actions other than following a victim or repeated actions
of the same kind. It also adds language that stalking can include behavior
targeted to the victim’s current dating partner. “The connection between
stalking and subsequent violent acts must be taken seriously,” Senator
Nelson said. SB 434 establishes a task force to address the relationship
between domestic violence and child abuse and neglect.
Child Care Safety: SB 1178 increases protections for
children in paid care. It enhances oversight of the approximately 7,600 listed
family homes and prohibits individuals from managing a child care operation if
their authority to operate was previously revoked or denied. “These
changes improve the state’s oversight of child care operations to increase
protections for children in a variety of paid care settings.”
SB 76 responds to reports of fraud in the federal self-arranged day care
program, which provides day care subsidies for single parents transitioning
from welfare to work. Reports have uncovered cases of children being left at
home unsupervised or placed in the care of relatives with felony records. The
bill mandates criminal background checks on providers. “This bill closes
the door to unsuitable providers so that the funding truly benefits those
single parents in need of day care assistance to remain in the workforce.”
Protecting Vulnerable Texans: SB 78 allows state
health and human services agencies to share information about adverse licensing
decisions and gives agencies authority to deny an application based on another
agency’s decision. SB 221 strengthens protections against the exploitation of
seniors and ensures that law enforcement is notified if a client’s home may be
left vacant due to the client being removed under a protective order. SB 220
increases protections of wards in guardianship and make it easier for families
to navigate the guardianship system. “These reforms will protect the civil
liberties of persons who come under the state guardianship system and help
family members understand and follow the process.”
Food Safety: Outbreaks of food-borne illnesses in
fresh produce spotlighted the need for greater consumer protections. SB 81
closes a loophole in the inspection process for entities that harvest, wash,
package or ship raw produce. “Consumers need better protection from
food-borne illnesses that may arise from fresh produce.”
Patient Protections: Texas received national
attention when two nurses in Winkler County were criminally charged with misuse
of official information after filing complaints against a physician to the
Texas Medical Board. Charges against one nurse were dropped, and a jury found
the other nurse not guilty, but not before both nurses lost their jobs. SB 192
strengthens protections for nurses engaged in patient advocacy activities.
“Nurses must be protected from retaliation when they report questionable
medical care.”
These updates on state government and politics are not transmitted at
taxpayer expense. Should you wish to remove your name from the
distribution list, please reply to this e-mail and type the word
“remove” in the subject line.
Paid Pol. Adv. Friends of Senator Jane Nelson P.O. Box 608 Grapevine, TX
76009
