U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's lawyers want a quick trial, if there's to be any trial at all, according to court papers. DeLay's indictment on campaign finance-related charges cost him his post as House Majority Leader, at least temporarily, and his lawyers say the best way to get back into leadership is to get the charges thrown out or to win exoneration in a speedy trial. Judge Pat Priest will get his first crack at the case next week, when he hears two requests from DeLay. One, they want the charges dropped or, barring that, a December trial setting. And two, if there's to be a trial, they want it held outside of Travis County, home field to District Attorney Ronnie Earle and a place where voters (and presumably, jurors) are, on average, Democrats. They'd like to have it in Fort Bend County, the decidedly Republican locale that's partly represented in Congress by DeLay. In papers filed with the court, DeLay's lawyers say the indictment fails to specify what law he's accused of breaking. They say the charges are vague and involve provisions of state law that weren't in effect when his alleged crimes took place. Their argument is that conspiracy and election code violations aren't linked in the law (or weren't, at that time) and that they are linked in the indictment. For that reason, they contend the indictment ought to be tossed. They also want to see internal papers from the district attorney's investigation of DeLay and have asked for any evidence of dissent within Earle's office about the charges against DeLay. The hearing is set for Tuesday, November 22. 

Not long after the Texas Supreme Court rules on the school finance case, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick will fire up a 14-member committee of legislators to come up with new plans for school finance and property tax relief. You'll notice some overlap there with the 24-member group of non legislators corralled by Gov. Rick Perry to look at state tax policy. Perry's panel, headed by former Comptroller John Sharp, doesn't have any lawmakers on it. And school finance isn't part of its charter. Dewhurst and Craddick want lawmakers to do a quick autopsy on the court opinion to figure out what needs fixing and what can be left alone. They haven't released the names of the members yet, but they've tentatively pulled together a list of seven senators and seven representatives who'll try to come up with something that the Legislature can pass and that the courts will approve. The idea is to see if the people who'll actually vote on any changes in state law can get together on some fixes. They'd be able to include -- or exclude -- whatever work comes out of Perry's task force in preparation for a special session on education and/or taxes. When might that special session take place? Nobody in a position to know is emitting information about it. But politics point to sometime after the party primaries in March. And experience -- some new and some old -- would suggest sometime before the school year is over. When schools are out, teachers and administrators are freer to come to Austin to lobby lawmakers. That was a well-known bit of folklore in the mid- to late-1980s, after sweeping school reforms were pushed through the Legislature. It was lost to some over time, but after two failed special sessions this past summer recharged the lore, it's part of the calculation again. 

Efforts to pull horse racing, lottery, slot machine and casino interests together into a "Texans for Tourism" group have hit what looks like a cement wall.  Ricky Knox, who was in the middle of earlier fights for pari-mutuel gambling and the lottery, got 100+ people into a hotel conference room in September to pitch the idea. But Knox, who didn't return calls, sent out an angry letter to interested parties saying track owners and potential track owners had blown up the cooperation racket because it worked against their own interests. In the emails, he said he'd met with Sam Phelps and Scott Phelps of Alabama -- they're principals in the Gulf Greyhound track near Houston -- and that they'd told him they don't want to pursue efforts to legalize video lottery machines until 2011. Our calls to Alabama, like those to Knox, went unreturned. Knox was trying to unify the state's gambling interests in advance of the 2007 regular session of the Legislature. Among other things, that would mean getting track owners running in the same direction; his emails on the subject indicate they're not ready to do that. "... We were gaining momentum on a daily basis, in fact, it was amazing how many positive things were happening -- but, we all knew at any moment, 'Mr. Greed' would surface and kill the effort. Today -- 'Mr. Greed' won," Knox wrote. Efforts to legalize casinos are still underway, but quiet. The "Let The Voters Decide" group still wants lawmakers to put casinos on the ballot to see whether voters would go along with the idea. And it's too early to start carving the tombstone for VLTs. Promoters of various forms of gambling will be watching to see what the Texas Supreme Court says on school finance, and then on what Gov. Rick Perry's tax task force does in response. If more money is required, or if business taxpayers strongly resist efforts to lessen homeowners' burdens at business expense, gambling could move up on the popularity charts. Racing and the lottery grew out of finance problems in the 1980s and 1990s. Texas lawmakers aren't always crazy about gambling, but there are any number of taxes they love even less. And they've always covered their bets, leaving the final say to voters in the form of constitutional amendments. Groups that oppose gambling expansion in Texas -- the Texas Eagle Forum, for instance -- are paying close attention. They sent an alert to members after Knox's missive made the rounds, urging their folks to contact members of the Legislature to try to get expanded gambling off the list of tax relief options. 

What once looked like a frolic for a political junkie in Texas -- a year with contested statewide races all up and down the ballot with stars running for governor and U.S. Senate and on and on -- now looks more like a quiet night at home.  The Guv's race will be noisy in March and probably again in November, but all else is pretty quiet in the top spots on the ballot. Redistricting has taken the juice out of all but a handful of congressional and state Senate elections. Only the Texas House -- which still has a few swing districts and where primaries could be roiled by messy school finance and tax issues -- appears to offer much for the politically minded observer. And in many instances, that's more subtle than the usual R v. D set-up. Texas is in a period when the most interesting competition of ideas and candidates comes in the March primaries -- particularly on the Republican side. Only two members of the Texas congressional delegation won with less than 55 percent of the general election vote in 2004: Chet Edwards, D-Waco, who got 51.2 percent, and Pete Sessions, R-Dallas, who came in at 54.3 percent. Edwards, in CD-17, is on most lists of incumbents on thin ice in 2006; at least two Republicans are battling for the nomination to take him on, and there'll be national money on both sides in that contest. One resident of the district, when he's not in the White House, is George W. Bush. Several members of Congress got there after tough primaries. For the most part, those were creatures of redistricting rather than continuing competitive districts. But Democrat Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, has both a rematch opponent and a newcomer in former U.S. Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, D-San Antonio, and state Rep. Richard Raymond, D-Laredo. It went to a recount in 2004, and it's a real contest next year. The closest race for the Texas Senate two years ago had a 17-point spread between the Republican and the Democrat, and the only close race was in a Democratic primary won by the incumbent, Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, with 53.9 percent. None of those districts is likely to flip from one party to the other. But senators serve four-year terms. You have to look at the 2002 elections to see what's going on in districts held by senators up in 2006. If you're looking for fights, that's not much more encouraging. In 2002, three senators got less than 55 percent of the vote in the general election: Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, who was knocking off an incumbent Democrat, David Cain of Dallas; Gonzalo Barrientos, D-Austin, fending off a well-financed Republican challenger who got some mileage out of a DWI charge against the incumbent; and Ken Armbrister, D-Victoria, who got 53.3 percent of the vote in a district that votes for Republicans in most other races on the ballot. Barrientos isn't seeking reelection next year, and Democrat Kirk Watson, a former Austin mayor and current Chamber of Commerce honcho, is the preemptive favorite to replace him right now. Armbrister hasn't said for sure whether he'll run for reelection next year. There's been a new rumor every week about it -- that he'll run, that he'll quit and lobby, that he'll go work for Gov. Rick Perry as liaison to the Lege -- and his aides give cloudy answers when asked about his future. Their boss has scheduled a fundraiser for next month but has been slow to send out invitations. And they say he'll make his announcement one way or the other in his own time, probably when filing for office begins next month. Republicans, meanwhile, are lining up to see if they can do better against him than Lester Phipps, who got 45 percent in 2002. In the 2002 primaries, Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen, went through a tight primary and then a runoff to get to his first term in the upper chamber. And Republican Tommy Williams also survived with less than 55 percent in the GOP primary. Those races probably contain no omens, though; both men were House members running for Senate seats that had been redrawn in redistricting, and neither faced an incumbent (though Williams' opponent was Michael Galloway, a former state senator). In the 2002 primaries the only senator who had a real race had a real race: Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, staved off a challenge from Rep. John Shields. Wentworth kept the seat in a relatively easy general election, but escaped the primary with a 1,216 vote margin, out of 51,246 votes cast. Boil that down to present tense: There are, at this juncture, three tough race in the Texas congressional delegation, and one in the Texas Senate. Edwards occupies a target area for both national parties. He'll be alone in March while at least two Republicans battle for their nomination, but it'll be an important contest in November. Cuellar's CD-28 has to be considered an open race, at least in March. Another race depends on how the ball bounces. U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, got just over 55 percent in 2004; he'll face former U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson in the general election, but that race has more to do with national politics and courthouse troubles than with district lines; it's Republican turf under most circumstances. In the state Senate, Armbrister generally votes with the GOP, but some in that party want to put a Republican in office in SD-18. If he runs, he'll have a race. And the Republicans will have a contest in March, either way. To the extent there's much action on the ballot next year, it will be in House races. And because of redistricting and its tendency to give comfort to incumbents of both parties, much of the fun stuff will happen in March rather than in November. Four Democrats in the House got there after primary runoffs in 2004. Three -- Yvonne Gonzalez Toureilles of Alice Veronica Gonzales of McAllen and Abel Herrero of Corpus Christi -- beat incumbents (Herrero in the first round, the others in the runoff). David McQuade Leibowitz of San Antonio won his runoff after surviving a crowded primary election, and beat the incumbent Republican in the general election. None of the four got less than 55 percent in their runoff. Rob Orr, R-Burleson, won a runoff against an imploding opponent (Sam Walls led the first round, but his campaign died when pictures of him in women's clothing went public). Orr was the only Republican House member who got there by way of a runoff in 2004. Several members got into the House with less than comfortable margins and could be potential targets next year. Charles "Doc" Anderson, R-Waco, got 50.4 percent in the GOP primary and then got 53.2 percent in the general election. He'll have a primary opponent, and the Democrats see a chance in that district. No other Republican got less than 55 percent in the primary. Armando "Mando" Martinez, D-Weslaco, beat an incumbent in the primary, getting 53 percent of the vote. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, beat an incumbent, with 54.2 percent. Alma Allen, D-Houston, beat an incumbent with 55.4 percent. In the general election, Stephen Frost, D-Atlanta, got in with 52.8 percent. Mark Homer, D-Paris, got 50.2 percent. Chuck Hopson, D-Jacksonville, got 52.7 percent. Jim McReynolds, D-Lufkin, got 51 percent. Robby Cook, D-Eagle Lake, decided to run for reelection after announcing he wouldn't and considering a party change; he ended up with 53.66 percent. John Otto, R-Dayton, had 54.5 percent. Mike "Tuffy" Hamilton, R-Mauriceville, had 55.4 percent. Herrero, after that primary runoff, got 55 percent in the general. Gonzalez Toureilles got out of the general with 50.9 percent. Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs, had 54.5 percent. Todd Baxter, R-Austin (he resigned his seat to become a cable lobbyist and won't be on the ballot next year) had 50.1 percent. Anderson's general election win was 53.2 percent. David Farabee, D-Wichita Falls, got 53 percent. Tony Goolsby, R-Dallas, got 53.1 percent. Ray Allen, R-Grand Prairie, got out with 52.5 percent; he's not running for reelection next year. Leibowitz won his general election with 50.6 percent of the vote. Martha Wong, R-Houston, had 53.5 percent. And Hubert Vo, D-Houston, got 50 percent and won by less than three dozen votes. If you were trying to put together a map of next year's races, there are two ways to look at those past results. If a name has a D next to it and a narrow margin in 2004, put that on the target list for Republicans. Flip the letter and the party affiliation, and that's the Democrats' first list. Now, look at it from the perspective of the party leaders on either side. If one of your reps didn't look so hot in 2004 and if you really need the seat, find them a primary opponent or talk them off the ballot. And if one of the reps on your side voted with your enemies, add them to the target list. One more factor -- education -- will make ten to twenty races interesting next year. School superintendents and current and former school board members are signing up in a bunch of races. Some of that's normal -- the pool of new low-level state candidates comes from school boards, city councils, county commissions and the like -- but part of it is a reaction to the proposed solutions to school finance in the regular and special sessions earlier this year. Educators and other community leader types are also popping up in districts where the school finance votes that made sense in Austin don't look as good at home. Some rural members, for instance, are getting questioned about voting against bigger homestead exemptions that would have benefited the folks back home. And some members are getting peppered at home for not going along with state leaders who were trying to find a solution. If all that amounts to anything, it could have a real influence on school finance. The Legislature that survives these elections could take up the issue in the next regular session, in January 2007. And if there's a special session on school finance next spring, the results of the primary elections will be fresh on everyone's minds. 

The Legislative Budget Board (LBB), a ten-member panel made up of Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Speaker of the House Tom Craddick, and seven members of the Texas House and Senate, should soon convene to decide whether to fund various projects not addressed in the current biennial budget. Among proposals to be considered are school textbook funding and more money for nursing homes. I offer one other item for the LBB to address: the full restoration of the roughly $77 million in trauma care funding left in limbo in the current state budget. This is a matter where, speaking plainly, lives hang in the balance. At issue are dedicated funds collected through a system of fees and driver's license surcharges on bad drivers -- which I created in 2003 as part of House Bill 3588 -- that help keep Texas' trauma care network viable. The dilemma is that the lion's share of trauma care funds collected over the next two years will remain unspent. About $63 million in trauma funds were appropriated over the biennium, while it is expected that available revenues will be $77 million more. Texas' trauma care system was at a point of crisis prior to the creation of the current funding method. Trauma centers were closing and others were frequently in a state of diversion as they became overwhelmed. Patients needing emergency trauma care were literally dying while trying to find an open bed. Whether the patient had insurance or not made no difference in their survival odds. Worse, the erosion of trauma care had a domino effect on all other emergency services. Trauma centers create a pool of talent that is capable of responding to other tough cases on a 24/7 basis. A trauma facility that permanently closes creates a hole in the care network that risks unraveling for more than just trauma cases. Shifting care to the trauma facilities that remain open creates additional strains and care disruptions for the other emergency cases that come through the doors. The trauma system -- and the emergency room system to which it was attached -- was stressed to the point of breakdown under normal loads. We were left with little capacity to respond to a catastrophic event, such as a hurricane, terrorist attack, major industrial accident, or pandemic disease outbreak. The creation of a stable source of trauma care funding in 2003 was a major turning point in resolving this crisis. What it did was partially close the revenue gap for hospitals that volunteered to operate trauma facilities. This targeted funding was sufficient to stabilize the trauma network and even encourage its expansion. In the immediate aftermath of the bill, a sizable number of applications were received to either acquire or upgrade trauma care certifications. Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston even agreed to add 40 additional trauma care beds. All of this was done on the reasonable assumption that all of the funds dedicated to trauma care under HB 3588 would actually end up going to trauma care. However, this isn't what happened. As mentioned earlier, the new biennial budget left the majority of trauma funds unappropriated. The response has been both swift and negative. Two facilities in Houston are dropping their trauma certifications. Other hospitals around the state are waiting to see what happens with the LBB before deciding whether they too will shut their trauma care doors. Texas now risks setting back the progress made at a time when it needs its trauma system more than ever. If this situation is not addressed, it could have negative consequences for far longer than this current budget cycle. Trauma care is not provided in isolation. It requires a seamless system that covers the entire state. A car wreck victim in rural Texas must be evaluated, stabilized, routed to appropriate care, and then receive treatment. It is a web of relationships that must function. Strain on one segment is felt in the entire web. If enough links fail, the web may collapse and people die. Stable trauma care funding has already produced tremendous benefits for our state; using all of the money in the fund for the purposes for which it was collected will compound this benefit. On the other hand, not following through will inevitably lead to the erosion of the trauma care network. It might not erode quite as fast, but it will still wear away. It will be far more difficult and expensive to persuade trauma facilities to come back once they have closed. The prudent course, both financially and for public safety, is to prevent those closures by restoring the trauma funds as soon as possible. Delisi, R-Temple, chairs the Texas House Committee on Public Health