You got your budget. You got your school finance/reform bill. You got your tax bill. And then you have everything else. If there's a notable feature to this legislative session, it's that those three pieces of legislation have sucked the oxygen out of the room. There are other bills of note — appraisal caps, workers compensation insurance, the water bill, some sunset bills, and so on — but the report card on this Legislature will focus on the three big deals.

The budget is underway, with conference committees named from both Houses and the crunchers of numbers banging away on side-by-side comparisons of the bills. The school finance and tax bills are both out of the House — that happened weeks ago — and meandering through the Senate. The school bill is public, at least. The tax bill went to Sen. Steve Ogden's Finance Committee, then to four subcommittees, and was last seen in one of the negotiating theaters attached to the lieutenant governor's office. We're told they'll show something to the public soon, maybe even while this edition of the newsletter is still warm.

As you know, they're attempting to revise the current corporate franchise tax to add more business taxpayers and lower rates. The current tax only applies to about 17 percent of the corporations in the state once everyone's accountants have gone to work. The Legislature wants a broader tax with a lower rate.

One version knocked around on the Senate side would work like the current tax but would apply to all kinds of businesses — specifically including all the flavors of business partnerships now excluded from the tax. They'd pay their choice of .25 percent (that's 1/4 of one percent) of "net taxable capital" or 1.95 percent of "net taxable earned surplus." The earlier term is used in the current franchise tax; the latter is a modified business activity tax that pulls in a company's Texas income, its payroll (with deductions for the lesser of 50 percent of income per worker, or $30,000, and for part-timers). The income side excludes foreign income, but includes income stuffed away in affiliates and so on.

So far, the House has been wary of taxing partnerships, while the Senate has always worked to include them. And the politics are gnarly. The House already voted on a tax bill and there's some conversation on that end of the building about the dangers of voting on another one that contradicts or compounds the earlier vote. They'd relax a little if the Senate would just go along with the House plan. Senators are in the same boat, though, having voted on a tax plan two years ago. They're also at risk — if there is one — for voting for different tax bills to solve school finance.

Another level of discussions is about the size of the local school property tax cut. Legislators from both chambers are trying to produce a 50-cent cut for most taxpayers, but before the current legislative session, the conversations were about smaller bites, in the range of 25 to 30 cents. Lawmakers are trying to find the point where a Big Enough Property Tax Cut intersects with a Small As Possible Tax Bill. They're trying to get as much juice as possible with as little squeeze as possible. Some argue that it doesn't matter — that a vote for a little tax bill is no safer than a vote for a big one, and that the only appeasement that will keep voters heeled is a large property tax cut.

What About the Rest?

With six weeks left in the legislative session, lawmakers and lobsters are starting to fidget and look at their watches. If a bill isn't out of committee within a week or so, and hasn't already passed either the House or the Senate, it'll need help to get to the finish line.

For major bills with management imprimaturs (visible or invisible), there's plenty of time. But the average piece of legislation, if it's to get all the way through the process, needs to roll. Nothing's dead yet, but in a week's time, lots of legislation will be running a low fever. Expect the pace to quicken.

Some scatter-shooting:

• Rep. Joe Nixon, R-Houston, says he's waiting to see what the Senate will do with limits on asbestos litigation before he'll try to get a House vote. The Senate has been the higher hurdle, and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has been personally involved in negotiations to get that issue unstuck (and two others: the tax bill and the telecommunications bill).

• Workers compensation insurance remains jammed. The Senate passed a bill and the House passed a bill and neither side has been willing to hear the other side's bill. An attempt to split the thing so everybody would have something to brag about fell short.

• Sen. Ken Armbrister, D-Victoria, followed his announcement of a big water bill with a substitute and seems to have made some progress bringing together some groups that historically fight. But it's got a small tax in it — 13 cents for every 1,000 gallons, with no tax on the first 5,000 gallons — and that's produced some opposition. Rep. Robert Puente, R-San Antonio, is the House leader on water, and has taken a piecemeal approach instead of writing one big bill.

• Gambling proposals are still alive, even though most handicappers don't see the votes for either slot machines or full-blown casinos. That could change if there's something like a deal on school finance. One bill to watch, since it has to pass and it's a potential vehicle for everything else: The lottery commission's sunset bill. And the opposition to gambling is still percolating, too. Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale, R-Tomball, snagged a letter from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to the Christian Coalition of South Florida that blasts gaming interests there. In the letter, Bush tells the group that Florida proponents of gambling expansion are "seducing the voters with the hollow promise of more education funding." A copy of the letter is available on our website by clicking here.

In Texas, the lobbyists promoting a constitutional amendment to allow casinos claim gaming, once it's up and running, would bring $5.5 billion into the state treasury every two years. That amount would cover half the cost of lowering local school property taxes by 50 cents, and would halve the size of the state tax bill needed to fund that property tax cut. Their pitch is online at www.LetTheVotersDecide.com.

• Have any siblings? Kids? Know any men? You already have a basic understanding of negotiating a telecommunications bill. Every player has one eye on what it's getting and another eye on what the other guys are getting. In the phone/cable/Internet/gizmo business, each outfit wants its data/voice pipeline to be the biggest and to go where everyone else's pipeline goes. And the players who are forced to serve markets they don't want in order to get lucrative markets want to make sure their competitors also have to serve the ugly customers. There are details, but that's the essence of the thing. An interesting breakout issue is usually referred to a municipal wireless. In some places, city governments are opening broadband access — which they buy from phone and cable companies — to citizens. Austin, for instance, has a couple of parks where wireless Internet access for laptops is free. In other parts of the country, cities have sponsored "wireless clouds" that cover areas much bigger than a park in Austin. The companies don't like that. People with laptops do like it. Lawmakers are trying to figure out how to write rules about it. The House's bill passed; telecom is currently a Senate problem.

Tipped Caps

Appraisal caps don't have the support in the Texas House they apparently have in some pockets of the state. In two days time, the residents of the Legislature's lower chamber knocked down two separate measures that would have made it more difficult for local governments to increase their incomes from property taxes.

The first would have capped property values for tax purposes; the values would do whatever the market dictated, but increases of more than five percent each year would have fallen outside of property tax range. A bipartisan group in favor of that idea was outnumbered by a bipartisan group that opposed it. (Of 81 votes against the bill, 36 were cast by Republicans and 45 by Democrats; on the other side, there were 49 Republicans and 16 Democrats. House Speaker Tom Craddick didn't vote.) In a deft bit of legislative maneuvering, the bill was killed in a way that prevents its sponsor, Rep. Dwayne Bohac, R-Houston, from bringing it back to life.

The next day was Rep. Carl Isett's turn to try legislation that would have forced local governments to win approval from voters for any increase in property tax revenues of more than three percent, whether that came from higher values, higher rates, or growth in the tax base. Some outside groups that oppose appraisal caps — the Texas Association of Realtors, for instance — support revenue caps. Capping appraisals creates inequities between property owners; taxes would be artificially low on a home owned by someone for a long time, while the home next door might be on the rolls at its full value because of a recent sale. Isett's bill hits revenues at the city level and stays out of appraisals.

Even so, it started with opposition and ended with opposition. Isett, a Lubbock Republican, made the revenue caps idea more palatable with an amendment that basically put the locals on longer leashes, but like Bohac's measure the day before, it was first attacked with hostile amendments and finally killed with a point of order because of some incurable problem with the way the legislation came up for consideration. That could still be resuscitated, in theory. Still in the works is a Senate version of Bohac's bill; whether the upper chamber wants to take a crack after the rough week in the House is unclear.

Conventional wisdom: The House actions smacked down a pet program of Gov. Rick Perry, who has mentioned appraisal caps and limits on property tax growth in two out of two State of the State speeches over the last three years.

Before you buy that line, there's something to be said for its counterpoint: Perry can (and apparently plans to) make the push for limits on local government spending a plank in his reelection platform. What looks to Austin hacks like a humiliating slap — Perry made one of his infrequent forays onto the House floor a week before the votes to bolster support — can be marketed as a setback on the way to getting government to hold back taxing and spending. That's not a bad product in a GOP primary.

A weak spot, pointed out by The Dallas Morning News in a story on state spending, is that Perry and other current and former state leaders haven't done as state officials what they're asking local officials to do. With the exception of the current budget, written by lawmakers facing a $10 billion shortfall, each state budget since 1996 has increased between four percent and 10.5 percent, according to the paper. Had the proposed three percent limit applied to state legislative actions, voters would have been called in each time to say okay to what the Legislature was doing.

All Politics is Local

State Rep. Martha Wong, R-Houston, voted for a constitutional amendment banning marriages of same-sex couples, and that measure, part of the Texas Republican Party's platform, left the House State Affairs Committee on the way to the full House. But her district includes a large and active gay and lesbian population (she's got Houston's Montrose area in her House district) and she issued a rationale for her vote as she cast it, saying she only voted for the legislation after it was amended, as she put it, so as to allow civil unions.

"I believe the institution of marriage should be maintained only between one man and one woman. But I cannot allow us to write blatant misunderstanding and discrimination into the Texas Constitution by banning civil unions as well," she said. She also quoted President George W. Bush, who was talking about federal legislation at the time: "I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do."

Looking for Jobs

Once upon a time, Texas politicians could get in trouble for having their names appear too prominently on the reports printed by the government to fill dusty shelves in legislative offices. Now you can put your name and face more prominently on your state-supported Internet site than the name of the agency where you're serving; the average officeholder is as bashful about promotion as the average car dealer. And in this environment, a television commercial featuring the governor for all but a few of its 30 seconds goes unremarked.

That last one — a commercial targeted at business people in the other 49 states — prominently features Gov. Rick Perry. The spot touts the "governor's cup" award from Site Selection magazine that was awarded to Texas a few months back. Perry does almost all of the talking, over pictures of him, of the award ceremony and of various Texas landmarks and locales. Click here to watch it on the governor's state website.

State taxpayers aren't paying for the commercials, and the spots are running outside of Texas, in Washington, D.C., Detroit, and Sacramento and San Jose, California, through the end of next week. The total cost, born by a 501-c-3 outfit affiliated with the governor's economic development office, is $123,808.

The governor's office is open about who contributes to the Texas One Foundation, though disclosure isn't required. That outfit got $100,000 each from Introgen Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., and Verizon Communications. Five donors gave $50,000: CenterPoint Energy, TXU (Oncor), SBC, Greater Austin Economic Development, and AGC of Texas Infrastructure Education Fund.

• Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams, who really is a car dealer, started his job with an extensive road schedule. He's traveling to county courthouses around Texas to push the Help America Vote Act, a federal deal that's run through his office. He's hitting five to ten counties a week, which lets him tell the county officials and local voters about HAVA and how much money is available to each of them, and to hold press conferences and all that. He's not a candidate or anything, but this is the sort of groundwork that a future candidate might do.

One Vote Short

Campaigns for People, a campaign finance reform advocacy group, is running radio ads to try to unplug legislation that would outlaw so-called informational ads in the 60 days before an election. Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, chairs a subcommittee where that bill was stuck, and the radio ads are running in his district.

In the ad, a man and woman are complaining about corporate commercials in campaigns, and the man says there's legislation to change that. The woman asks about the local rep — Hughes — and the man says, "Oh, he's on the fence and is the deciding committee vote." An announcer then instructs listeners to call him and gives his phone number. How's this for a twist? It's an issue ad, and under current law (and with no election in sight), the advocates don't have to disclose who contributes to them and thus, who pays for the ad. You can hear it online with a click here.

That legislation is more popular in the Texas House than most of the bills that have already come to a vote, including education reform, taxes, appraisal caps, and big chunks of the appropriations bill. It had, at last check, 93 sponsors, including all 63 Democrats in the House and 30 Republicans. They're pushing for a vote, using an old line from House Speaker Tom Craddick as a prod. Craddick, when he was elected speaker (or when it was apparent that he would be) told reporters that Rep. John Longoria, D-San Antonio, had been unable to get a bill out of committee even though a majority of House members had signed on as co-authors, and said that sort of thing wouldn't happen on his watch.

Flotsam & Jetsam

There's something circular about the first piece of legislation signed this session by Gov. Rick Perry. It allows local governments to use tax money to attract government spending. They'll be able to use some of the money they collect from sales taxes for improvements to military bases, helping those communities show some commitment to federal officials thinking about which bases to close and which ones to keep open.

• After spiking the current version of life in prison, the Texas Senate approved a life without parole bill that had stalled. A handful of prosecutors opposed the no parole option for fear jurors would prefer it to the death penalty. Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, wanted three sentencing options in capital murder cases: death, life without parole, and the current life penalty with its possibility of parole after 40 years. The Senate agreed to open Door Number Two but only if Door Number Three is closed. That bill is on its way to the House. His staff put an ominous headline on their press release about the bill's passage: "Senate Approves Life Without Parole and Removes Life".

• The freshest argument for easier access to information about school spending comes from Texas Businesses for Educational Excellence, which peeled back the curtains to find the number of central administrators has increased 37 percent since 1997 while student populations grew 13 percent. Operating expenses, according to that group, increased 57 percent over that period. That group's membership overlaps significantly with the Governor's Business Council, a group of CEOs from Texas companies. They, and Gov. Perry, want information on school spending to be easier to get to, so voters can see where the money's going.

• Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, through his trusty aides, says he didn't tell an audience in The Woodlands that he wants to run for U.S. Senate in 2010. For one thing, neither of the Texas seats in the U.S. Senate is on the ballot that year. What he said was that he'd like to run for governor in 2010, and he also reiterated his endorsement of Gov. Perry's reelection next year. Dewhurst, at this point, wants to succeed Perry.

• Texas ranks 43rd among the states in state-local tax burden, according to the Tax Foundation. That's the outfit that calculates "Tax Day" each year to tell us when we've stopped working for our various governments and started working for our mortgages and car loans and grocery stores. Tax day nationally is April 17. In Texas, it was on April 14. The state ranks 22nd in overall tax burden when local and state taxes are combined with federal taxes. That could drop next year, when deductible sales taxes are reflected in the numbers. On average, Texans pay 9.3 percent of their incomes to state and local governments as tax, and a total of 28.4 percent of income when state, local, and federal taxes are combined. The U.S. averages for those numbers are 10.1 percent and 29.1 percent, respectively.

• If you go by percentages, the list of the ten fastest-growing counties in the U.S. includes, in the sixth position, Lampasas County, Texas. The Census Bureau's newest population estimates are out; Lampasas grew 7.3 percent from 2003 to 2004. Three counties in the U.S. made it into the top 10 in overall population and in number of people added during those two years: Los Angeles County, California, Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona, and Harris County, Texas. Texas had 12 counties among the nation's 100 fastest-growing, and had three (Harris, Tarrant, and Collin) in the top ten. The state added 386,648 to its population from July 2003 to July 2004 according to the estimate. If you plunked that many people in an unpopulated area and called it a county, it would be the 12th largest in the state, bigger, for instance, than Montgomery or Williamson or Nueces. As of July, they said, Texas had a population of 22,490,022.

Political People and Their Moves

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst named his five conferees who'll sit down with House negotiators to work out the budget. Senate Finance Chairman Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, will lead a group that includes Republican Sens. Kip Averitt of Waco and Robert Duncan of Lubbock, and Democrats John Whitmire of Houston and Judith Zaffirini of Laredo.

 A couple of days later, Speaker Tom Craddick named the House's five conferees who'll sit down with Senators to negotiate a budget. Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, will head the House delegation. He'll go in with Republicans Dan Gattis of Georgetown and Lois Kolkhorst of Brenham, and with Democrats Vilma Luna of Corpus Christi and Sylvester Turner of Houston.

Before the conferees were named, the House voted down an attempt by Rep. Jose Menendez, D-San Antonio, to "instruct" the negotiators to hold their ground on a teacher pay raise in the budget. That wasn't even close, dropping on a 94-to-51 vote.

Appointments: Gov. Perry named four people to the Texas Credit Union Commission: Gary Janacek of  Temple, president and CEO of Scott & White Employees Credit Union, who will chair the commission; Thomas Butler of Deer Park, president of Centrifuge Services and Diesel Fuel Maintenance Services; Pete Snow, a private invester in Texarkana who lost a House race to Rep. Stephen Frost, D-Atlanta, last year; and Barbara Sheffield of  Sugar Land, president and CEO of Members Choice Credit Union and the only re-appointee in the bunch.

For director spots Lower Neches Valley Authority, Perry named Steven McReynolds of Port Neches, president of Groves Equipment Rental Co.; Sue Cleveland of Kountze, president of Cleveco Construction Co.; Kathleen Thea Jackson of  Beaumont, public affairs manager for Exxon Mobil Corp.; and Woodville Mayor Jimmie Ruth Cooley.

Jeff Austin III, vice chairman of Austin Bank in Tyler, is Perry's pick for a slot on the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority.

The governor reappointed four members of the State Board of Nurse Examiners: Deborah Bell, a financial advisor from Abilene; Dr. Blanca Rosa Garcia, an RN and a professor at the Department of Registered Nurse Education at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi; Beverly Nutall of Bryan, an LVN who works at University Pediatrics Association; and Dr. Linda Rounds, an associate professor at the UTMB School of Nursing at  Galveston.

Nothing against the practitioners, but we had no idea there was a Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists. There is, and Gov. Perry named three folks to it: Y. Lynn Clark of  Dallas, principal geoscientist with LCA Environmental, Inc. and president of Pertect Detectors, Inc.; Glenn Lowenstein of  Houston, president and senior project manager of Terrain Solutions, Inc.; and Kimberley Robinson Phillips, a Houston lawyer and the only reappointee of the three.

Quotes of the Week

Rep. Fred Hill, R-Richardson, urging his colleagues to finish off a property tax bill: "The time to kill a snake is when you've got the hoe in your hand."

Frank Sturzl with the Texas Municipal League, on legislative efforts to limit property tax growth: "Clearly, the goal of this Legislature is to cut taxes, but somebody else's taxes. There's never a rollback of state budgetary actions."

Dallas lawyer Mike Boone, quoted in the Houston Chronicle: "We're headed down the road in Texas where if the anti-tax forces prevail, it will be to the detriment of the long-term future of Texas. I'm afraid the leadership we have right now is taking us down that road."

U.S. Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, quoted in The New York Times (he later apologized): "I believe the judiciary branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and in some cases just ignoring the legitimate will of the people. Legislatures for too long have in effect washed our hands on controversial issues from abortion to religious expression to racial prejudice, leaving them to judges who we then excoriate for legislating from the bench. This era of constitutional cowardice must end."

Republican political consultant Arthur Finkelstein, quoted in The New York Times on the occasion of his marriage to another man: "I believe that visitation rights, health care benefits and other human relationship contracts that are taken for granted by all married people should be available to partners."

Jerry Polinard, a political science professor at the University of Texas-Pan American, telling the Associated Press where to find Democrats running for governor: "You have to go look under 'sacrificial lambs' in the Yellow Pages."

Houston financier Charles Miller, quoted in the Houston Chronicle on complaints that a contested GOP gubernatorial primary will cost a lot: "Grow up. It's a big state. It's going to be expensive. If you're going to be a player, you can't ask for comfort."

---

Texas Weekly: Volume 21, Issue 42, 18 April 2005. Ross Ramsey, Editor. George Phenix, Publisher. Copyright 2005 by Printing Production Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission from the publisher is prohibited. One-year online subscription: $250. For information about your subscription, call (800) 611-4980 or email info@texasweekly.com. For news, email ramsey@texasweekly.com, or call (512) 288-6598.

[updated version] The Senate's version of the tax bill is still percolating, to put it most politely, and it's unlikely the public will get a peek until next week.Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst told a herd of reporters that the Senate's school finance/reform bill could be out of committee early next week with a possible floor vote late next week, but he didn't promise anything. The tax bill that raises state revenues enough to cover the costs of buying down local school property taxes will be right behind it, he said, without saying, "Scout's Honor." The Senate Finance Committee could see a bill on Monday, he said; if they're quick about it, a floor vote could follow quickly behind the school finance bill. That would leave about four weeks in the regular session for reconciliation of expected big differences between what the House passed earlier and what the Senate is willing to approve. Dewhurst's line is familiar to anyone who has been following this: "We're looking at a flat low-rate tax where everybody is in the same boat... I don't think there's a will here in the Senate to increase sales taxes as much as the House did." He wouldn't go further into detail on the Senate plan or into what components of the House plan are unacceptable to the upper chamber. Senators and lobsters who've seen the plan, or pieces of it, say it's still got a business activity tax -- the rate hasn't gelled -- and a half-cent sales tax, and a 50-cent increase in the tax on a pack of cigarettes, and a tax, probably, on alcoholic beverages. They've got the comptroller's office running numbers in an effort to avoid the embarrassment the House suffered after it voted out an unbalanced tax bill. That's a form of insurance, but it slows things down. And business groups are lobbying for something closer to what the House already passed. They like the idea of choosing the lower of two business taxes, and many would come out better with the House plan than with almost any alternative being considered on the other end of the building. The House is trickling revenue legislation out of committees to rest in the Calendars Committee, where agendas are set. The state property tax bill is sitting on the runway, and proponents of casino gambling are hoping to move their legislation into the takeoff queue. That first bill is, as we've written, a provocation aimed at the Senate. It's a centerpiece of the Senate's plan, and the House, according to Speaker Tom Craddick, is probably against it. Voting it down in the House would undermine the Senate's current efforts and force the upper chamber to come up with something else; holding it ready merely threatens to undermine those efforts. Craddick has local officials on his side; they don't like the idea of the state taking over most of the revenue end of school finance. But it has advantages: If schools are funded with a statewide tax instead of uneven local taxes in rich and poor districts, the inequities that keep landing the school system in court could be leveled out. And one key attack on the current system -- that it's illegal for the state to tell local districts how much tax money they have to raise for schools -- would evaporate. Dewhurst, however, treats it like a House problem: "I believe Speaker Craddick can pass what he wants to pass, so we'll have to wait to see if he has the votes." The second big item on the runway is a plain old gambling bill, and this is how they work: You advance the thing to a holding point, then check and recheck and recheck the votes on the floor of the House to see whether 100 mostly conservative politicos would prefer to violate their anti-gambling tendencies or their anti-tax tendencies. At the moment, the House already voted for a big tax bill, and gambling isn't a priority. But behind the scenes, the gambling lobby, some of the Pink Building's revenue seekers and other interested parties are getting things in place in case the environment changes. If the Lege comes to a point where some kind of gambling appears to be the best solution to school finance, it'll have a chance. If not, gaming measures will die as they usually do, in a committee wanting for a vote. The boosters hope to have gambling legislation idling in Calendars by the end of next week.

The Supremes can move quickly, but they don't have to.Lookit: More than a year ago, the Texas Association of Business asked the Texas Supreme Court to block lawyers prying into TAB's direct mail campaign in the 2002 legislative elections. The association said its advertising fell short of electioneering and said its donors' identities were protected from disclosure since those weren't election ads. The lawyers and candidates suing them contend the ads were designed to influence the outcomes of elections, both in their timing and content. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled for TAB, but apparent indecision by the judges has put the case on ice (they and their employees can't talk about pending writs, so there's no way to know exactly what's going on over there). A state district judge in Austin ordered TAB to produce the evidence sought by lawyers on the other side of a civil suit. TAB appealed to the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin, and lost again. And on the last day of January 2004, attorney Andy Taylor, TAB's lawyer, appealed to the Supremes. The high court asked for some briefs and the lawyers finished with that on June 1 of last year. Court observers we talked to say it takes five judges to get the panel moving on a writ like the one filed by TAB, and the Supremes have been working with as few as seven judges over the last months. Now they've got nine. One possibility -- again, there's no knowing what's up -- is that the judges have one justice writing a "per curium" on the writ. There's no deadline for that, or for the court to move on the TAB case. In the meantime, there's no discovery in the civil case.

The U.S. House Majority Leader's side of the story, with cover letter, below, and the text of his explanation in the next post.Dear Friends and Supporters ? I want to thank all of you for your continued assistance and words of encouragement -- your thoughts, prayers, and advice have been of great value to me as we continue to work on furthering the ideals of lowering taxes for all Americans, strengthening our homeland security, winning the war on terror, and moving our country's economy forward. It should come as no surprise that following the 2004 election-year attacks on the President that the Democrats, their syndicate of third party organizations (Common Cause, Public Citizen, Move-On, etc.) and the legion of Democrat-friendly press would turn their attention to trying to retake Congress. It is abundantly clear that their fundamental strategy revolves around attacking me and working to tear down Republican leadership. Many of you have requested a "fact versus fiction briefing document" that can be shared via e-mail or in clubs, organizations, or groups you are affiliated with. It would be quite easy to write an entire book about how Democrats, and many in the press, have chosen to selectively report and strategically ignore many FACTS about me and my work as Congressman for the 22nd District. Rather than run the laundry list of unfounded attacks, I thought it would be helpful to briefly outline some recent issues and provide you with information that tells the real story. I think when you see the consistent pattern of information that has been largely ignored or unreported it will help you dispel any other unsubstantiated allegations. I am grateful to you and voters of the 22nd Congressional District for allowing me an opportunity to continue to serve you in Congress. The success we have had in electing other Republicans and passing legislation that is anathema to the 40 years Democrats controlled Congress is the main reason why these attacks are occurring. As always, I thank you for your support, welcome your advice, and look forward to seeing you soon. Take care and God Bless, Sincerely, Tom DeLay

The political chess players are talking about special sessions this summer, and many of them say it would be a bad idea.The premise here is that school finance and tax talks could break down. Not that they will, but that they might. What would happen? The state's school finance system has been declared illegal by a state district judge and the appeal is pending before the Texas Supreme Court. The justices asked the lawyers to file briefs, and that process draws to a close at the same time the regular legislative session comes to its end. They could hear the case within a week of Sine Die, if they're in a hurry. When they'd rule is anyone's guess, but a court in a hurry could put opinion to paper by the end of summer or early fall. In the meantime, the House and Senate currently appear to be singing different songs on taxes and schools. If they're still apart at the end of the session, what good would it do Gov. Rick Perry to bring them right back? A special session a year ago on this subject produced nothing, and it doesn't do anyone any good to compound a failure. On the other hand, you can't get a deal if you don't force talks. Gov. Bill Clements pulled lawmakers back twice in 1989 to get a workers' compensation insurance deal, and called them back four more times in that same interim to solve another issue: School finance. Eventually, lawmakers gave him both bills to sign.

The Texas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the school finance case on July 6, just about a month after the Legislature's regular session ends. That's not dependent on what lawmakers do to try to reform the system, unless they get something so good that the school districts that filed suit drop their arguments. Nothing of that sort has surfaced.The Texas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the school finance case on July 6, just about a month after the Legislature's regular session ends. That's not dependent on what lawmakers do to try to reform the system, unless they get something so good that the school districts that filed suit drop their arguments. Nothing of that sort has surfaced. The court earlier set briefing deadlines, and the lawyers in the case are supposed to have all the paper fighting completed by May 31. The current system is unconstitutional, according to a state district judge in Austin who heard arguments about the mix of funding, the distribution of money, and adequacy of the education kids in Texas are getting from the government. The prospect of a hearing in July could influence decisions about special sessions this summer. If lawmakers work out a compromise on school finance and the taxes that go with it, that's moot. But if they don't -- which seems more likely given the current discord between the House and Senate -- Gov. Rick Perry will have to decide whether a special session would force a solution or just compound the state's failure to patch the system over the last two years. The timing for a special, if there is one, would be tricky now that the court has set a date. The session ends on May 30. Perry has 20 days after that for signatures and vetoes and such -- that's June 19. Calling the Legislature back into session while that's going on would be a rare thing; governors typically don't want lawmakers (and their ability to override vetoes) hanging around during that three-week period. Calling the Legislature back to Austin doesn't make much sense if you wait past early to mid-summer, since the school year starts in August and the current finance system will already be locked in for another school year. Perry has the most at risk. Governors get blamed when things don't get done, and often when they do get done. If voters are worked up about school finance, failure to get a fix could hurt him (as could a tax bill, if the Legislature chooses a fix unpopular with voters). Legislators probably skate if school finance doesn't get repaired right away. The governor would get credit for a win and blame for a loss, and most lawmakers will escape that. The justices on the Texas Supreme Court are in an interesting spot. Five of them -- Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, and Justices Nathan Hecht, Phillip Johnson, David Medina, and Priscilla Owen -- are on the ballot next year and school finance could easily become an issue in those elections. A Supreme Court ruling in the fall -- if it goes against the state -- could set up those contests and put the heat on Perry to call a special session on school finance right before the primary season starts. In its notice of the July hearing, the court listed some of the issues raised in the briefs filed by the state and the groups suing the state: • Whether the school districts? claims are legal questions appropriate for courts or political questions properly left to the Legislature. • Whether the school districts have enforceable rights to sue under the state constitution (Article VII, Section 1). • Whether the school districts have standing to claim injury under the state constitution (Article VII, Section 1, or Article VIII, Section 1-e). • Whether the state school-finance law violates the constitutional prohibition against a state property tax. • Whether inequity in the state's maintenance and operations financing violates the state constitution (Article VII, Section 1). The Edgewood appellants specifically attack the trial court's failure to apply a legal standard or make findings to support its conclusion that "disparity in access to revenue for maintenance and operations? did not violate Article VII, Section 1's efficiency mandate. If you just can't get enough of this school finance stuff, the briefs that have been filed so far are available online via these links (the school finance case includes three different lawsuits and three different case numbers): Cause number 04-1144
APPELLANT: SHIRLEY NEELEY, ET AL. APPELLEE: WEST ORANGE-COVE CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Cause number 05-0145
APPELLANT: WEST ORANGE-COVE CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. APPELLEE: SHIRLEY NEELEY, TEXAS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, ET AL. Cause number 05-0148
APPELLANT: EDGEWOOD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. APPELLEE: SHIRLEY NEELEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS TEXAS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, ET AL.

What follows is the full text of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's memo to supporters giving the Texas Republican's version of events that have landed him in the headlines recently.Fact vs. Fiction: The Democrats' Case against Tom DeLay
Tom DeLay Has Never Been Found in Violation of Any Law by Anyone • Tom DeLay does not stand accused of any violation of any law or rule in any forum and has never been found to have violated any law or rule by anyone. • The Ethics Committee disposed of all matters but one (deferred at DeLay's request) without sanction. • Partisan DA Ronnie Earle has never even contacted Tom DeLay to appear as a witness.
Democrats and their Outside Front Groups are Colluding to Target DeLay • Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction, and the criminalization of politics. • They hate Ronald Reagan conservatives like DeLay and they hate that he is an effective leader who succeeds in passing the Republican agenda. • This demonization of DeLay is not new: in the months leading up to the 2000 general election, the DCCC filed a racketeering lawsuit against DeLay, which was ultimately dismissed with prejudice by a federal judge. • The Democrats' plan, and their collusion with Democrat front groups, is well known: Breaking the ethics truce has been a high priority of good-government groups such as CREW, Public Citizen, Public Campaign, Common Cause, the Campaign Legal Center and Judicial Watch. The groups convened a meeting a month ago where they discussed strategy and divvied up tasks aimed at breaking the truce. For example, Mary Boyle of Common Cause was tasked with researching how the House had policed recent allegations of misconduct. Craig Holman of Public Citizen accepted the challenge of finding a lawmaker to file a complaint against DeLay. (The Hill, June 15, 2004, p. 1) • So yet again another Democrat leader and campaign chair have embarked on a similar campaign to demonize DeLay to distract the voters from the fact they have no agenda to offer for America. DCCC Chair Emanuel has announced that he intends to make ethical charges the touchstone of campaigns and would use several high-profile local races to create a national image of corruption in the GOP-controlled House.
The Ethics Committee Did Not Find that Tom DeLay Has Violated Any Rule The Bell Complaint • The Committee dismissed two of the allegations Bell made against DeLay and deferred the third at his request. Dismissed Count I (Westar): The information we obtained indicates that (1) neither Representative DeLay nor anyone acting on his behalf improperly solicited contributions from Westar, and (2) Representative DeLay took no action with regard to Westar that would constitute an impermissible special favor. (Memo of Chairman Hefley, p. 2). Dismissed Count III (DOJ/FAA Contacts on TX Redistricting): With regard to the [DeLay's staff's] contacts with the Justice Department, the information we have obtained indicates that they were not improper Instead, they consisted of a straightforward inquiry on whether there was any legal basis for DOJ to intervene [in the matter of the absent Texas legislators]. (Memo of Chairman Hefley, p. 37). Deferred Count II (TRMPAC) (at DeLay's request in accordance with Committee Rules when a matter is subject to regulatory or law enforcement review): [W]hatever Representative DeLay's role was in the TRMPAC activities challenged in Count II, his participation in those activities, if any, was not related to the discharge of his or her duties as a Member of the House. (Memo of Chairman Hefley, p. 32). The Nick Smith Complaint • Dismissed: The issues raised by the conduct of the Majority Leader in this matter are novel in that conduct of this nature and the implications of such conduct have never before been addressed or resolved by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Indeed, the Majority Leader's testimony indicates that he did not believe he acted improperly under House rules during his encounter with Representative Nick Smith. In addition, the Investigative Subcommittee believes that the relevant facts related to the Majority Leader's conduct described in detail in this Report already have been fully developed. In the view of the Investigative Subcommittee, these factors mitigate against further investigation and proceedings in this matter. (Oct. 4, 2004 Report, p. 43).
An "Admonishment" is Not a Sanction • Members, the media, and outside parties spun the "admonishments" as a formal sanction when it clearly was not any sanction. • Sanctions can only be levied after Informal Information Gathering, Investigative Subcommittee, Adjudicatory Subcommittee, and Sanction Hearing. • Sanctions include expulsion, censure, reprimand, fine, and denial of rights. • The Bell complaint was dismissed and never even went to the Investigative stage.
What the Committee DID Say to Tom DeLay: Moderate Your Future Behavior • The Committee sent him two letters containing informal warnings to be careful in the future for what it admitted were cases of first impression. • The verb "admonished" was used and is now exploited to mean some sort of sanction. • DeLay has only received two other such words of caution during a 20 year career.
The Only Person Found by the Committee to Have Violated the Rules was Chris Bell • The Committee stated that Bell's "complaint violated Committee Rule 15(a)(4) in a number of respects. Because you personally signed and this complaint and transmitted it directly to the Committee under Committee Rule 14(a)(1), you are responsible for the contents of the complaint in their entirety, and thus you are responsible for these violations." (Nov. 18, 2004 Letter of Hefley, p. 1) • Bell's complaint contained inflammatory language and exaggerated charges used for political advantage: "Indeed, it appears there is no purpose for including excessive or inflammatory language or exaggerated charges in a complaint except in an attempt to attract publicity and, hence, a political advantage. This improper political purpose was highlighted in this instance by the various efforts you undertook to promote your complaint publicly, by including such excessive or inflammatory language or exaggerated charges in press releases and other public statements." (Nov. 18, 2004 Letter of Hefley, p. 1) • It cannot be ignored that every one of the NINE counts of rules violations found by the Committee was raised by DeLay four months before the matter was disposed of. The actions of Bell, his staff, and a Democrat front group were contemptible of Congress. As the Ethics Committee stated, "it is highly improper, and a basis for the initiation of disciplinary action, for any House Member or staff person to attack the integrity of this Committee or any of its members." (Nov. 18, 2004 Letter of Hefley, p. 1)
The House Voted to Reform the House Ethics Rules in Fairness to all Members Changes to the Ethics Rules • The Chris Bell matter, as well as the Nick Smith matter, exposed serious concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the ethics process, as well as the lack of adequate due process for subjects of ethics complaints. • In the Nick Smith matter, several Members, including Reps. DeLay, Miller, Smith, Cunningham, and Dreier, were clearly denied due process and were never notified that they were targets of the investigation. • The Chris Bell matter further exposed the lack of due process in ethics matters, and further revealed how outside parties could insert themselves in the House's peer review system and exploit it for political purposes. • The reformed rules allowed for Members to choose their own counsel, instill due process for Members (by allowing Members to publicly plead their case), and to restore the presumption of innocence by requiring a majority vote to open an investigation. Changes to the Conference Rule Were Not Driven by Tom DeLay, but Tom DeLay did Personally Make the Request to Reinstate the Old Rule • The Conference Rule was changed last Congress in fairness to the Members who become the political targets of partisan prosecutors and Democrat-front groups. Democrats, be they Ronnie Earle or Chris Bell, should not determine who leads House Republicans. • Tom DeLay asked the Conference to reinstate the old rule at the beginning of this Congress after he felt the Democrats "who have never had any rule" were exploiting the reform for political purposes. DeLay said that while he saw the merit in the rule changed, he did not want the Democrats to use it as a distraction from the Republican agenda. Changes to the Make Up of the Ethics Committee Were in the Normal Course of House Business • Chairman Hefley was not "sacked" by leadership. Hefley was term limited and would have needed a waiver from the Speaker to remain as Chairman which to date has only been done on one occasion (for David Dreier of the Rules Committee). • The new Chairman, Doc Hastings, was the next senior Member in line for the gavel. • The Democrats refuse to let the Committee meet because they are still trying to politicize the ethics process and block the Committee from doing its work.
The Texas Matters Are About Politics, Not DeLay Texas Indictments: A Political D.A.'s Attempt to Criminalize Politics • The Austin District Attorney, Ronnie Earle, is a partisan Democrat who tries to undo with a grand jury what he can't stop at the ballot box. Under a peculiar Texas law, he has statewide jurisdiction over election law issues. • The indictment of three TRMPAC figures and eight corporate donors was a political dirty trick sprung 40 days before an election. • Since the 2002 elections, Earle has gone after people and entities he determined were involved in helping Republicans win elections in Texas. • Earle has a history of targeting political enemies including Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, whose case was dropped due to a lack of evidence. Texas has only recently become a Republican state, so Earle's claim that he prosecuted Democrats too is a red herring. • The indictments are based on an extreme interpretation of a highly ambiguous law being misused by 1) a highly partisan prosecutor; 2) who is soon to be on his fifth grand jury; 3) in this two-year investigative payback for Republicans winning in Texas. • Earle's investigation is about whether the Texas Election Code was violated through corporate fundraising. But Texas law allows corporate money to be raised for indirect political activity (as opposed to donations to candidates), which is what TRMPAC did. The Texas Civil Trials are "Sour Grape" Attempts by Failed Candidates to Get Rich Quick and Use the Legal System to Undue the Will of the People • The New York Times wrote, "The trial testimony has not tied Mr. DeLay to any illegality or suggested that he was involved in the details of the fund-raising efforts by the political action committee." (Phil Shenon, "Testimony at Texas Trial Focuses on Use of Donations," New York Times, March 3, 2005). • The Washington Post wrote, "during a related civil trial in Austin last week, DeLay's name repeatedly came up, but no evidence was presented that the veteran GOP leader had done anything wrong" Certainly there was little said in testimony during last week's civil trial that could harm him"The trial opened Monday with DeLay's name front and center. But by the close of the trial on Friday, the testimony presented showed DeLay's direct role in TRMPAC's successful bid to win the Republican takeover of the Texas House was mostly that of a figurehead and a casual adviser early on." (Mike Allen and Sylvia Moreno, "Prosecutor Balks When Asked If DeLay Is Target of Tex. Probe," Washington Post, March 6, 2005).
The Manufactured "Controversy" Surrounding DeLay"s Perfectly Permissible Travel The trip DeLay to Russia in 1997 and the United Kingdom in 2000 were proper according to House rules and guidance. • The Center invited DeLay on these trips, organized them, paid for them, sponsored them, and reported the costs to him (which he reported on both his 30 day travel disclosures and his Annual Financial Disclosures). The National Center issued a March 2 statement detailing these facts. • During the Russia trip, DeLay met with religious leaders and government officials. During the UK trip, he met with former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the trade minister, the U.S. Ambassador, and members of the Scottish Conservative Caucus. • If the sponsor of a trip ultimately obtains funding for a trip, a Member is not and should not be responsible for that information. As Jan Baran, a well known ethics lawyer, stated in the Washington Post on March 12, "If somebody is doing some backdoor financing, how would the member know?" The trip DeLay took to Korea in 2001 was properly vetted and undertaken in accordance with House rules. • DeLay and two other Members were invited in 2001 to Korea by a charity. • At the time the invitation was extended, KORUSEC was not registered as a foreign agent. Two days before the trip, the group registered as a foreign agent but did not notify DeLay or any other Member of Congress. • Since 2001, numerous Members on both sides of the aisle have taken similar trips sponsored by KORUSEC, including a staffer for Nancy Pelosi.
There is Nothing Improper about a Members' Campaign or PAC Employing Family • Christine DeLay, Tom's wife, serves as CEO of ARMPAC. She provides big picture, long-term strategic guidance and help with personnel decisions. She is compensated accordingly based on the service she provides, which is public information filed with the FEC. • Dani DeLay Ferro, Tom's daughter, serves as his campaign manager. She is also a skilled and experienced professional event planner who assists ARMPAC in arranging and organizing individual events. She is compensated accordingly based on the service she provides, which is public information filed with the FEC. • FEC regulations specifically permit salary payments to family members where they are payments for "bona fide, campaign related services." 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(H). In fact, the FEC issued an Administrative Opinion on this issue in response to Jesse Jackson Jr.'s request to employ his wife by his campaign. • Many high-profile Democrats have also employed family members on their campaigns: Howard Dean's brother has served as the chair of Dean's PAC, and both Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt's children have served as full time employees on their campaign payrolls.

The legislative session is reaching a point that's as reliable as the lunch horn in a factory: That moment when it appears that everything is definitely-for-sure-absolutely-certainly going to fall to pieces. Or not.The House-Senate wrangle over the budget is underway, but only one of the bills that goes into that mix has actually passed both houses. The rest of the mess -- either three bills in total, or five, depending on whether you include school finance and taxes -- is still in the pipeline. The House passed the last two bills, and also a "supplemental" appropriations bill that includes a lot of non-supplemental spending. Those three await Senate action. A fourth -- a House bill that includes something like $1.2 billion in budgetary hat tricks to help balance the spending -- is still in the House. Relations between the Speaker and the Lite Guv are tense, compounding the regular troubles that come with the end of every session. An example: Dewhurst said he talked to Craddick about un-sticking worker's compensation insurance legislation; Craddick responded by saying Dewhurst must have been talking to someone else. Another: Dewhurst, told of Craddick's comments that the House had problems with a key component of the Senate's tax package, told reporters the House will pass whatever Craddick wants it to pass, implying the problem wasn't with the other 149 members there. A semi-retired politician we know said the two are "talking through the newspapers." That's not a description of a good political relationship. Aides to Gov. Rick Perry say he's been working behind the scenes, but his public comments on the direction of legislation have been mild. He's not using the bully pulpit to push any agenda, but his chief of staff, Deirdre Delisi, recently asked lobbyists happy with the House's version of school finance and taxes to put up the money for an ad campaign promoting it. That was reported in The Dallas Morning News, and it's not clear now that it will go forward. (It wasn't clear before the reporting, to be fair, because the business people with the money had questions about the content of the ads and the propriety and politics of getting involved.) Perry could probably accomplish the same marketing run with a series of press conferences. Whatever the promotional efforts, the governor has to decide how to get the two halves of the Legislature working together before he can ask voters to support the union. And that's a problem right now.

Round Two of the wars to limit spending by local governments fell short in the Texas House. Legislation by Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, would have shaved the trigger on budget growth, requiring locals to seek voter approval of spending increases of more than five percent. But after some hostile amendments were added, he pulled it down until next week.Current law allows a voter referendum if a city council or some other local unit raises effective tax rates more than eight percent and if 10 percent of the registered voters sign a rollback petition calling for an election (it's six percent for school districts). Isett's bill would have lowered the rollback rate and the number of signatures needed for a challenge. Petitioners would have to get signatures equaling ten percent of the last gubernatorial election; if tax rates went up even more, petitions would need only five percent of that gubernatorial number. But the House added an amendment that would let local governments exempt any tax increases attributable to state mandates that aren't funded by the state or federal governments. It set up a system where the comptroller would list those mandates each year, and also would allow local governments to show the comptroller items that didn't make the list. Isett, after that and a couple of other amendments were added, decided to wait until next week to try to win final passage for the bill. Last week, Dwayne Bohac, R-Houston, fell short of what he needed to impose state caps on local spending growth. His bill, and Isett's, were backed by Gov. Rick Perry, who worked the House floor before the bills came up to try to win support. Aides to Perry say he'll make a campaign issue of it.

State lawmakers don't have to worry about rollback electionsThe House and Senate are banging out the differences in their budgets, but they started pretty close together, at about $139 billion in proposed spending over the next two years. If lawmakers successfully pass the school finance plans they're talking about, they'll add $11 billion or so to that total, which would put the state budget around $150 billion. Two years ago, with an economy-induced budget crunch, lawmakers approved a two-year budget that totaled $117.4 billion. Without school finance, the current plan calls for an increase over that plan of about 18.4 percent. With it, the number leaps to 27.8 percent. If those numbers were attached to a city or county in Texas, under current law, the spending plan would be open to a rollback election.

The Senate's version of the tax bill is still percolating, to put it politely, and it's unlikely the public will get a peek at it this week.Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst told a herd of reporters that the Senate's school finance/reform bill could be out of committee early next week with a possible floor vote late next week. The tax bill that raises state revenues enough to cover the costs of buying down local school property taxes will be right behind it. The Senate Finance Committee could see that on Monday of next week; if they're quick about it, a floor vote could follow quickly behind the school finance bill. That would leave about four weeks in the regular session for reconciliation of expected big differences between what the House passed earlier and what the Senate is willing to approve. Dewhurst's line is familiar to anyone who has been following this: "We're looking at a flat low-rate tax where everybody is in the same boat... I don't think there's a will here in the Senate to increase sales taxes as much as the House did." He wouldn't go further into detail on the Senate plan or into what components of the House plan are unacceptable to the upper chamber. Meanwhile, the House is getting ready to vote on a state property tax for schools. It requires 100 votes -- as a constitutional amendment, it needs two-thirds of the Legislature to make it onto the ballot for voter approval -- and local officials don't like the idea of the state taking over most of the revenue end of school finance. But it has advantages: If schools are funded with a statewide tax instead of uneven local taxes in rich and poor districts, the inequities that keep landing the school system in court could be leveled out. And one key attack on the current system -- that it's illegal for the state to tell local districts how much tax money they have to raise for schools -- would evaporate. State property taxes are included in the Senate's menu for reform. But House Speaker Tom Craddick, while saying he wanted the House to vote on the state taxes, also says he doesn't think the support is there. Calling a vote while the Senate is still working is a bit provocative, like telling a cook the main dish that has yet to be prepared will go uneaten. Dewhurst, however, treats it like a House problem: "I believe Speaker Craddick can pass what he wants to pass, so we'll have to wait to see if he has the votes."

A prison lawyer, a general, mobile home regulators, and a reporter to watch them allMelinda Bozarth is the new general counsel at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. She's replacing Carl Reynolds, who left TDCJ for the Office of Court Administration earlier this year. Bozarth has worked for either the Texas prison system or the Texas attorney general's office (where she defended the prison system in court) since 1983. Most recently, she was deputy director of TDCJ's rehabilitation and reentry programs division. Brig. Gen. Charles Rodriguez will be the new adjutant general of Texas. Gov. Rick Perry appointed him to that post, overseeing state and National Guard forces in Texas. he'll replace Lt. Gen. Wayne Marty, who is retiring. Rodriguez, a West Point grad, works at the UT Health Science Center in San Antonio, where he's deputy director of the Center for Public Health Preparedness and Biomedical Research. Gov. Perry named Valeri Malone, a Wichita Falls attorney, to the center chair on the board of the Manufactured Housing Division of the State's Department of Housing and Community Affairs and reappointed her to the board. He also named Michael Bray, an El Paso Realtor, and Kimberly Shambley of Dallas, an attorney and exec with Countrywide Home Loans, to that board. Press corps moves: The Dallas Morning News moves reporter Pete Slover back to the state desk, which means he'll be covering legislative and political stories with an investigative bent. He's been working what newspapers call "projects" which means you disappear for long periods of time between stories. Slover is one of the reporters who popped the cork on misdeeds at ERCOT.

Priscilla Owen's nomination to the federal bench cleared the U.S. Senate Judiciary committee for the third time (on a 10-8 party-line vote), but there's still a question about whether she can win full Senate support.Owen, a Texas Supreme Court Justice, is one of several judicial appointees who have been unable to win votes from enough Democrats to win confirmation from the full U.S. Senate. This is the filibuster fight the Republicans in the Senate have been talking about for the last several months. President George W. Bush wants to put her on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and first appointed her for that post four years ago.

Appointments and an electionGov. Perry reappointed Richard "Link" Linkenauger of Greenville to the Sabine River Authority of Texas. He's the president of Link International, Inc. The governor named three people to the board of regents at Texas Woman's University: Virginia Chandler Dykes of Dallas, an occupational therapist; Sharon Venable, an executive at the Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce; and Lou Halsell Rodenberger of Baird, an emeritus professor of English at McMurry University. Dykes and Rodenberger are alums of TWU. The Texas Public Finance Authority is getting three seats filled by the Guv: H.L. Mijares of El Paso, president of Mijares Mora Architects; Dallas investor Marcellus Taylor; and Linda McKenna of Harlingen, a nurse and exec at Valley Baptist Health System. Taylor and McKenna are new to the board; Mijares is a reappointment. Perry named Mike Click, CEO of Brownfield Regional Medical Center, and Houston attorney Hector Longoria to the Emergency Medical Advisory Council, a panel attempting to coordinate EMS efforts at all levels of government. Carolyn Lewis Gallagher of Austin joins the ERCOT board as an independent member. That acronym is Electric Reliability Council of Texas, and they operate the state's electric grid. Gallagher, a businesswoman who's been on a mess of civic and government boards, was elected by ERCOT members after a national search.

We'll preface this by saying that it's just the kind of story that comes up only in the context of elections, and that the same people who gripe about these things are the primary promoters when the mud is on the other face.Ahem. Gov. Rick Perry's got a new list of supporters -- this time the names of State Republican Executive Committee members who say they'll support him in next year's primary. He's claiming the backing of 46 members of the 62-member SREC, and says he's been working with those folks for two decades. "Over the past twenty years, I have been proud to work with thousands of grassroots Republicans like the members of the SREC whose goal is to build a lasting Republican majority in Texas," said Perry in the written statement. But Perry hasn't been in the club that long. He was elected to the House as a Democrat in 1984 -- 21 years ago -- and switched to the GOP in 1989, running for Texas Agriculture Commissioner against Democrat Jim Hightower in 1990. Perry beat him and was on his way up the GOP side of the ballot. But just two years earlier, he was the state chair of Al Gore's Democratic primary campaign; Gore was seeking the chance to challenge then-President George H. W. Bush. And now, we return to Perry's announcement, already in progress. SREC members are elected two by two from each of the 31 Senate districts, and they're listed in that order. One caveat: The endorsements aren't from the Party, but from the SREC members as individuals. It's hard to get 46 people from either political party to agree on lunch, but these folks signed with Perry: John Cook, JoAnn McCarty, James Wiggins, Melinda Fredricks, David Teuscher, Bernice Lewis, Hal Talton, Larry Bowles, Linda Gonzales, Sharon Martin, Clint Moore, Mandy Tschoepe, Wayne Tucker, Jane Burch, William Ford, Melba McDow, Robin Armstrong, Kathy Haigler, Tom Quinones, Vickie Clements, Eugene Pack, Jan Galbraith, Brian Russell, Josh Flynn, Chris Davis, Jim Hotze, Terese Raia, Cress Ann Posten, Kim Hesley, Michael Bergsma, John Larrison, Dawn Lothringer, Oneta Leutwyler, John Tabor, Marjorie Ford, Sandra Jenkins, Skipper Wallace, Genny Hensz, Curt Nelson, Joe Solis, Thomas Mechler, Cecilia Levine, David Thackston, Kathy Gear, Benona Love and Chad Weaver. Perry said he's also got William Crocker, one of the state's two RNC members, on his side in a possible gubernatorial primary. And he said he won an endorsement from the R Club, a political action committee in Houston that's active in GOP politics.

Rep. Mary Denny, R-Aubrey, really is getting married this time.In the House chamber, during a break in the House calendar but while everybody is still milling around, on May 6. Rep. Joe Crabb, R-Humble, will be the presiding minister. The bride and her groom, Norman Tolpo, will have a reception after the event in the Speaker's Dining Room behind the Chamber. She had a highly rumored but quite erroneous marriage and honeymoon in August 2003, which remains the only fully incorrect three-sources-on-the-record story we've ever reported. This time, she's the source, and there's a copy of the invitation at this link: www.TexasWeekly.com/documents/denny.gif Denny and Tolpo will be the second couple to get married in the chamber in recent years, but the first in memory to be married while the House is in session. Rep. Dwayne Bohac, R-Houston, and his wife Dawn were married on the last Saturday of the special session of the Legislature almost a year ago. Before that, you have to go back to the days when Gib Lewis, D-Fort Worth, was Speaker of the House. One of his aides got married on the dais during a break in House business.