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 subtler 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 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 races 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.

Where the Wild Things Are

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. 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. 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. 

Quick! 

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. And they accuse the prosecutors of manipulating three grand juries to produce DeLay's indictment.

The prosecutors filed papers spelling out their version of what happened with the grand juries, and said DeLay's lawyers haven't given good enough legal reasons to open the grand jury's secret proceedings to public view. Finally, the defense issued subpoenas asking the members of one of those three grand juries to be in court when all of these motions are heard. Top it with this: Court TV has asked for permission to bring cameras into the courtroom for DeLay's trial.

The Way We Were 

John Hill's appearance as a witness for U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, bugged the Democratic Party so much that it's asking reporters to stop identifying their former standard bearer as a Democrat. Hill, a former Texas Supreme Court Justice, secretary of state, attorney general, and Democratic candidate for governor (he lost to Bill Clements in 1978), was brought in by DeLay's lawyers to talk about his view that state district Judge Bob Perkins should be removed from DeLay's case. Perkins contributed to Democrats and to some national organizations that, in one case, took some shots at DeLay.

DeLay's lawyers squawked. Testimony, including Hill's, was heard. Perkins got the boot. And in the stories about it, Hill was referred to as a Democrat.

The State Democratic Executive Committee answered that by passing a resolution that says Hill hasn't voted in one of the party's primaries since 1994 and that that's the only way someone declares allegiance to a political party in this state. The resolution from the SDEC "respectfully asks members of the Texas press to stop referring to Mr. Hill as a Democrat when he testifies for and supports high profile Republicans in controversial matters such as the Tom DeLay-TRMPAC criminal case." They ended it with a plea to Democrats who "supported a Republican or two in the past" to come vote in their primary in March. Hill says he does not care to comment. 

Snake Eyes 

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. 

Scratch Off 

The Texas Lottery Commission has a new applicant for executive director: former House Appropriations Committee Chairman Talmadge Heflin, who served 22 years as a state representative from Houston. 

Officials with the lottery say Heflin's application came in late — after the brass hats there were down to four candidates for the job. But they haven't made their final decision yet, and they've said all along they'd consider all comers. 

That was the second time in a week Heflin blipped on the government/political radar screen. The former lawmaker is going on the payroll for the Texas Public Policy Foundation. 

He'll be working on state budget issues, which suits him because of his years on appropriations, including a session as chairman. He and others at the think tank will be trying to figure out how state spending plans inflated by 18.7 percent earlier this year and how spending can be cut next time the Lege meets. His official title at TPPF is Visiting Research Fellow. 

Heflin said a few weeks ago he'll run for office next year, trying to take back the seat he lost by a handful of votes in 2004 to Rep. Hubert Vo, D-Houston. A spokesman for TPPF says there's no prenuptial agreement in Heflin's hiring: His bid for office won't affect his job unless some conflict of interest appears. The lotto gig would disqualify him for the elected post. Should he show up as a state employee, knock him off your prospects list.

Behind Door Number Two 

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 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. 

Everybody v. Hernandez 

The four candidates wiped out in the first round of a special election in HD-143 are all endorsing the second-place finisher, Laura Salinas, over the first-round winner, Ana Hernandez.  

Al Flores, Rick Molina, Charles George, and Dorothy Olmos, who finished 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th, respectively, each signed on with Salinas. Hernandez got 43 percent on Election Day. Hernandez got 26 percent. The votes of the other four, pooled, would have put a candidate in second place with 32 percent. If all those people were to vote and if all of them were to follow their candidates into Salinas' camp, she'd win a runoff with 57 percent. And if wishes were horses, we'd need more hay around here.

The money in the race continues to be interesting. When we looked at the 30-day reports last month, Salinas' biggest contribution had come from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a Republican-leaning political action committee that had given her $15,000. The biggest check to Hernandez was from Houston builder Bob Perry, the biggest single contributor to Texas Republican candidates in 2004 (and a big contributor to TLR, having donated more than $600,000 to their efforts since 2000).

As the election drew closer, TLR gave Salinas another $50,000 and she borrowed a total of $55,200 to finance the effort. The loans are guaranteed by former Rep. Roman Martinez, D-Houston. He's married to former Rep. Diana Davila, Salinas' aunt.

The Texas Trial Lawyers Association — the Hatfields to TLR's McCoys — gave $29,250 to Hernandez in the last month. She got help from several officeholders and from the family of the late Rep. Joe Moreno, whose death prompted the special election. She also got financial help from some officeholders, including $5,000 from Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, $1,142.23 from Harris County Commissioner Sylvia Garcia, and $2,100.21 from Constable Gary Freeman's campaign.

The runoff election isn't official yet, but the campaigns are aiming at Saturday, December 10. 

Cable Guy

Todd Baxter, who quit the Texas House a couple of weeks ago, is the new lobbyist for the Texas Cable TV Association.

Baxter, an Austin Republican, dropped out of a competitive race for reelection last month, saying he wanted to concentrate on work and familiy. He recently left an Austin law firm and is signing on as TCTA's general counsel and vice president for government affairs.

Gov. Rick Perry hasn't picked a date for the special election to replace Baxter. He can wait until the next available election date for these things — that's in May — or declare it an emergency and call an election for almost any date he chooses (it can't coincide with the primary elections or the primary election runoffs). Republican Ben Bentzin is, so far, the only Republican seeking the seat. Four Democrats are talking about it: Andy Brown, Donna Howard, Kathy Rider, and Kelly White.

Candidates on Parade 

Former legislator and judge Bob Gammage is talking to friends around the state to see whether he's got the support to run in the Democratic primary for governor. Gammage was on the Texas Supreme Court and the 3rd Court of Appeals, and served in Congress and in the Texas House and Senate. He sent an email around to test the waters, suggesting there that Democrats need more options next year.

• Democrat Chris Bell, the best known of the two Democrats who have already decided to run (the other is Felix Alvarado, a Fort Worth educator), got an endorsement for his gubernatorial campaign from state Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen.

• Gov. Rick Perry picked up endorsements from the Texas Alliance for Life political action committee, the Texas Optometric Association, and U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin.

• Kinky Friedman's latest bit is a $29.95 action figure with a cigar and a button on the back that, when pushed, triggers wisecracks and such from the doll. It comes complete with black hat and cigar, but it won't be ready for the holidays, apparently. The independent gubernatorial candidate's campaign will send you a certificate to put in the gift-wrap. The purchase price will get listed as a campaign contribution.

• Officially, now: Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst will seek reelection next year. So far, his only known opponent is Democrat María Luisa Alvarado, a military vet who lives in Austin and whose brother, Felix, is running for governor.

• Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill won't seek reelection, putting another high position in that transitional county into play, potentially, in November. For years, Republicans had a lock on countywide offices in Dallas; that's no longer true, and the absence of an incumbent in the DA's race opens the possibility of a competitive race.

• Former pro golfer Terry Dill is tapping the network of men who don't wear suits to work: His next report will note a $10,000 contribution from Jack Nicklaus and another $5,000 from U.S. relatives of South African Gary Player. Dill is one of at least five Republicans running to replace Rep. Terry Keel, R-Austin, in HD-47. He's got a fundraiser coming up after Thanksgiving that will feature golf lessons for contributors from a group that includes Ben Crenshaw and Jack "Jackie" Burke Jr. Dill, a lawyer, developer and financial consultant, is making his first run for office. He's got a website: www.dillforstaterep.com.

• Democrat Katy Hubener, who lost to Rep. Ray Allen, R-Grand Prairie, in last year's elections, says she'll be on the ballot next year. Allen won't. He announced last week that the current term will be his last.

• Steve Brown moves from talk to action — he'll be on the ballot next year in HD-27, challenging Rep. Doro Olivo, D-Rosenberg. He has been a lobbyist for the American Heart Association in Texas and for the Texas Medical Association and before that, worked for a number of Houston officeholders at city hall, in Washington and then in Austin.

• Ouch: The El Paso Times ran a front-page story about a Republican challenge to GOP Rep. Pat Haggerty that's funded by local allies of Gov. Rick Perry. In small type, the headline read "EP'S BIG GOP DONORS BACK GOP CHALLENGER TO" and in really big type, occupying a space that was wide enough for the little words: "UNSEAT HAGGERTY." 

Political People and Their Moves 

As expected, the committee at the top of the Dallas County GOP named former Rep. Kenn George to chair the party. He replaces Nate Crain, who bowed out a few weeks ago. George will run for a full term next year.

Judy Lynn Warne, an attorney in Spring and an adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law, is Gov. Rick Perry's pick to be judge of the 257th Judicial District Court. Linda Motheral resigned from that court last summer.

Perry named Lyn Bracewell Phillips of Bastrop and reappointed businessman A.W. "Whit" Riter III of Tyler to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Phillips is a former academician (and the spouse of former Texas Supreme Court Justice Tom Phillips).

Adam Jones, an associate commissioner at the Texas Education Agency, is taking over state funding and school financial audits there, a move prompted by recent retirements of Joe Wisnoski and Tom Canby. Wisnoski is a top school finance wonk and Canby headed the financial audits operation. Jones is giving up human resources and other agency business in the trade; that'll go to Associate Commissioner Ernest Zamora.

Perry named a new deputy press secretary: Rachael Novier, who had been working in the homeland security unit in the Guv's office.

The American Cancer Society has a new government relations director in Texas: James Gray replaces Kelly Headrick, who will oversee government relations in Texas and four other states. 

Quotes of the Week 

Gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman, quoted by the Associated Press: "The zit on the end of my nose here — the Lord has punished me for supporting gay marriage."

Pat Robertson, after Pennsylvania voters replaced school board members who voted to put Intelligent Design on the science curriculum: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover, if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God — you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there."

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, quoted in the El Paso Times on a project stalled by legislative gridlock: "I, personally, do not understand, as your lieutenant governor and as a taxpayer, how we would go out and spend $80 million to build three brand-new buildings in El Paso to house a new medical school and we don't fund the faculty."

John Sharp, head of the governor's task force on taxes, telling the Associated Press that nothing will happen without a spur from the courts: "If the Supreme Court rules, 'Hey, everything's fine'... then it makes it real difficult to pass something because there's nothing on the other side, no crisis on the other side, no bad thing that happens." 

---

Texas Weekly: Volume 22, Issue 23, 21 November 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.

The Texas Supreme Court says the state's school finance system is unconstitutional because it's $1.50 cap on school property taxes constitutes a state property tax. That's not allowed. The court gave lawmakers a June 1 deadline to fix it, without prescribing any remedies. The 7-1 ruling is available online at www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/Historical/112205.asp. Justice Nathan Hecht, writing for the majority: "We now hold, as did the district court, that local ad valorem taxes have become a state property tax in violation of article VIII, section 1-e, as we warned ten years ago they inevitably would, absent a change in course, which has not happened.20 Although the districts have offered evidence of deficiencies in the public school finance system, we conclude that those deficiencies do not amount to a violation of article VII, section 1. We remain convinced, however, as we were sixteen years ago, that defects in the structure of the public school finance system expose the system to constitutional challenge. Pouring more money into the system may forestall those challenges, but only for a time. They will repeat until the system is overhauled." 

U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay didn't get the fast ride out of Austin he was looking for. State District Judge Pat Priest told DeLay and his lawyers and the lawyers for the state that he wants them to file more legal briefs and that it might be a couple of weeks before he decides whether the charges against the Sugar Land Republican are valid. If they are, a trial on venue would still be in the wings, along with DeLay's attack on the way the prosecutors wheedled the former majority leader's indictment out of grand jurors. That could easily push a trial into next year, possibly eroding DeLay's power and reducing his chances of moving back into the offices of the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. Whatever the outcome of a trial, waiting is bad for the Texas congressman. He can't hold the leadership post while indicted, and ambitious people are keeping his seat warm for him. That won't last forever, and there's been some talk in Washington, D.C., about holding leadership elections early next year. Priest let the lawyers argue over the validity of the charges for half a day and then said he wouldn't immediately rule on DeLay's request to throw out the indictments. Lawyers for the Republican's co-defendants -- Jim Ellis of Washington, D.C., and John Colyandro of Austin -- were on hand to make similar pleas. DeLay's lawyers say Austin prosecutors have indicted him for breaking laws that weren't in place during the time when he allegedly broke them. They say he's accused of laundering corporate money for Texas legislative candidates but say those candidates never got any corporate money. And they say conspiracy charges against him don't apply because he didn't conspire and no crime was committed. Travis County prosecutors got a grand jury to indict the three men, in part, on charges of raising money from corporations, sending it through the Republican National Committee, and getting the RNC to send the same amount of money to seven candidates who were running for Texas House spots in 2004. Corporate money can't be used in Texas state campaigns, and prosecutors say the dollar-for-dollar swap amounted to illegal money laundering. Lawyers for the defendants say such swaps were commonplace under the laws that were then in effect. And they said that no corporate money landed in any campaigns; money from corporations went to the RNC, and money from individuals -- legal in Texas campaigns -- came back. One more thing: They said laws against money laundering at that time applied only to coin and paper money and not to checks or wire transfers. The indictments include a photocopy of a check for $190,000 to an affiliate of the RNC as part of the evidence of money laundering. Since it's a check, the defense lawyers say, it couldn't have been money laundering under the laws then in effect. 

The kind of stuff you get from doctors who are telling you to watch your health now so you won't be a miserable 70-year-old, or the financial advisers who tell you to save a little bit here and a little there when you're young, so you won't be a miserable 70-year-old.  `The committee got a look at the state's immediate demographic future from Steve Murdock, an academic at UT San Antonio who's also the state's official demographer. His stuff (which you can find online at www.txsdc.utsa.edu/presentations by clicking the links next to "Governor's Select Tax Committee"), is full of numbers and charts and could even make your head hurt, but it's interesting both in terms of economic policy and in terms of school finance. Murdock's work was obviously an influence on the judge who initially declared the state's current school finance system unconstitutional, and he reprised some of that for the tax panel, sliding from population growth and makeup to educational achievement to future household incomes if things change and if they don't. To wit: • Numerically, Texas is second only to California in growth and should continue to be. • While that's going on, 103 of the state's 254 counties are losing population. • Anglos, a group that already makes up less than half the population in Texas, are also making up a smaller part of the state's growth. From 1990 to 2000, Texas added 2.3 million Hispanics, 783,036 Anglos, 445,293 Blacks, and 307,000 "Other", a group that includes Asians and Native Americans. In percentage terms, that last group grew by 81 percent in that decade; the Hispanic population grew 53.7 percent, Blacks were up 22.5 percent, and the Anglo numbers grew 7.6 percent. • Hispanics will outnumber Anglos in Texas by 2020, by one estimate, and will make up more than half the state's population ten years later. • A freeze-frame in 2000 of Texans at least 25 years old showed almost 50 percent of Asians had at least one college degree; more than 50 percent of Hispanic adults in the state had stopped short of a high school diploma. • The median household income for Texas Anglos in 1999 was $47,162; for Blacks, $29,305; for Hispanics, $29,873; for Asians, $50,049. At that point, Texas was below the national average in both median household income (for all groups), ranked 30th among the states, and in per capita income, where Texas ranked 33rd. Given current trends, the overall household income in the state will drop steadily through 2040, while the number of households in poverty will increase for every subgroup: family households, single parent of either sex, etc. • Texas is slipping steadily in rankings of percentages of adults with high school diplomas, ranking 45th among the states in 2000; and in rankings of those with college degrees, where Texas came in 27th. Both standings were below the national average. 

A day before the judges started throwing lightning bolts, a gaggle of business people assembled by Gov. Rick Perry started a cram course on state tax policy. They'll spend the next few months trying to reengineer the state's taxes, with at least two things in mind. One, make business taxes fairer and bring the tax system in line with the modern state economy. And two, raise enough money to lower property taxes, making property owners happy while bringing in enough money pay for those cuts and to keep the public school finance system out of court for a while. The first steps are familiar to anyone who watched George W. Bush try to revise the tax system, or Ann Richards, or Bill Clements. The state averages a blue ribbon committee on taxes every five or six years. Bush's effort went through a legislative committee; the earlier forensic teams were made up of business people and legislators. Each of those efforts helped officeholders work their way out of some budget jams; none found a long-term solution that fits the modern Texas economy. Like their predecessors, Perry's task force started with the rundown on the current tax system and what works and doesn't, along with a quick history of the school finance train wreck that lumbered through the last several gatherings of the Texas Legislature. Lots of it is available in the files section of our website. Economist Ray Perryman, and Karey Barton and James LeBas, the tax and revenue wizards on the task force staff, zipped through Texas Taxes 101. Some tidbits: • Conventional wisdom is that one in six businesses in Texas pays the state's corporate franchise tax, but that's actually the number that file returns. Only one in 16 actually pays the tax. • Local and state taxes brought in $65.2 billion in the 2005 fiscal year. The breakdown: property taxes, 30.9 billion (including $16.7 billion for public schools); state sales tax, $16.3 billion; local sales tax, $4.5 billion; motor fuel, $2.9 billion; vehicle sales and rental taxes, $2.8 billion; oil & gas production taxes, $2.3 billion; corporate franchise tax, $2.2 billion. No other single tax produces more than $1.2 billion. Perry started the meeting, telling the group he wants any new tax to have five attributes: It has to be fair, broad-based, modern to match the state's economy, understandable, and competitive against other state systems. Later on, one of the panel members got a laugh by asking the tax wizards in the room whether any such thing exists. They pressed the policy folks on whether it's possible to bring partnerships and proprietorships into the business tax without triggering state constitutional provisions against personal income taxes (those taxes are legal in Texas, but only after a public referendum and only if the funds are dedicated to education). John Sharp, the former comptroller who's chairing the thing, reminded everyone about Perry's stand against income taxes, and reiterated his view that nothing would happen without a ruling from the Texas Supreme Court forcing the Legislature to act (He got that the next day). This turns into a road show next month. Sharp told the group there will be public hearings before year's end in Corpus Christi, Temple, Waco, and Victoria. 

"Today, we know that one thing above all else makes service providers efficient: competition. Even formerly communist countries recognize how efficiency is produced -- not by protectionism, not by higher taxes, and not by state control, but by freedom for competition. Yet the school districts that brought this case never once suggested in six-weeks' evidence that competition might make the Texas school system more efficient. No one considered fundamental reforms that efficiency might demand. No school expert considered whether it might be efficient to consolidate tiny school districts or redundant school administrations. No one asked whether it might be efficient to transfer students across district lines, or transfer funds to private providers that could meet their needs better. Instead, this trial focused entirely on getting more state funding through more taxes -- all else in the system to remain exactly the same." "First, because Article VII's education guarantee is a right that belongs to school children rather than school districts, the latter have no standing to assert this claim. Every party in this case was a school district, and every witness in the six-week trial was a school employee or school expert. Not a single attorney represented solely the interests of school students and their families -- who might actually favor the broader educational options or lower taxes competition might bring. By overlooking standing, this trial focused too much on the priorities of school districts, and not enough on the priorities of school families." "Before today, we have never held that government agencies have standing to sue the State for a bigger budget. The school districts allege they have insufficient money to carry out their duties, but it is not money for their own account." "In every analysis of standing, the plaintiff must contend that the statute unconstitutionally restricts the plaintiff's rights, not somebody else's. This the school districts cannot do." "Whether any school district in Texas has lost "meaningful discretion" is not a standard that can be proved by statewide trends. School districts are not forced to tax or spend money just because everyone else does it." "The school districts cannot establish a violation of Article VIII by proving that their current budgets are customary, or even reasonable; the tax cap they challenge is unconstitutional only if they proved they were forced to tax at that rate." "And as all the witnesses agreed, a growing stream of immigrants with little formal schooling or English proficiency requires that public schools not only leave no child behind, but go back at great expense and pick up more as soon as they arrive." "Out of 1,031 school districts in Texas, only 329 filed suit, only 47 asserted the single constitutional claim the Court affirms, only 9 presented proof on that claim in any detail, and only 3 called a witness to prove it at trial. On this narrow basis, the Court declares the school-finance system in every district unconstitutional, and enjoins state funding for them all. This is too broad." 

"Another standard set by the constitutional provision is that public education achieve "[a] general diffusion of knowledge . . . essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people". We have labeled this standard "adequacy", and the parties have adopted the same convention. The label is simply shorthand for the requirement that public education accomplish a general diffusion of knowledge. In this context, the word "adequate" does not carry its broader dictionary meaning: "[c]ommensurate in fitness; equal or amounting to what is required; fully sufficient, suitable, or fitting." Our responsibility in this case is limited to determining whether the public education system is "adequate" in the constitutional sense, not in the dictionary sense. That is, we must decide only whether public education is achieving the general diffusion of knowledge the Constitution requires. Whether public education is achieving all it should -- that is, whether public education is a sufficient and fitting preparation of Texas children for the future -- involves political and policy considerations properly directed to the Legislature. Deficiencies and disparities in public education that fall short of a constitutional violation find remedy not through the judicial process, but through the political processes of legislation and elections." "According to the State defendants' expert, the annual cost of public education is $30-35 billion, or about $7,000-8,000 per student, depending on what expenses are counted. More than half of the cost is funded by ad valorem taxes imposed by independent school districts on local property. The State funds only about 38% of the cost, down from about 43% in Edgewood IV, the lowest level in more than 50 years. The balance, usually around 8-9%, comes from the United States government." "The Legislature's decision to rely so heavily on local property taxes to fund public education does not in itself violate any provision of the Texas Constitution, but in the context of a proliferation of local districts enormously different in size and wealth, it is difficult to make the result efficient -- meaning "effective or productive of results and connot[ing] the use of resources so as to produce results with little waste" -- as required by article VII, section 1 of the Constitution." "The large number of districts, with their redundant staffing, facilities, and administration, make it impossible to reduce costs through economies of scale. Bigger is not always better, but a multitude of small districts is undeniably inefficient." "If school districts are forced to tax at or near maximum rates to meet constitutional and statutory requirements, then control over local ad valorem tax rates and spending effectively shifts to the State, depriving school districts of any meaningful discretion to tax below the rate cap set by the State or to spend on programs other than those required by the State and the Constitution." "The Constitution commits to the Legislature, the most democratic branch of the government, the authority to determine the broad range of policy issues involved in providing for public education. But the Constitution nowhere suggests that the Legislature is to be the final authority on whether it has discharged its constitutional obligation." "We have acknowledged that much of the design of an adequate public education system cannot be judicially prescribed. Litigation over the adequacy of public education may well invite judicial policy-making, but the invitation need not be accepted." "... [T]he principal cause of continued litigation, as we see it, is the difficulty the Legislature has in designing and funding public education in the face of strong and divergent political pressures." "... [W]e conclude that the separation of powers does not preclude the judiciary from determining whether the Legislature has met its constitutional obligation to the people to provide for public education." "We agree that the constitutional standard is plainly result-oriented. It creates no duty to fund public education at any level other than what is required to achieve a general diffusion of knowledge. While the end-product of public education is related to the resources available for its use, the relationship is neither simple nor direct; public education can and often does improve with greater resources, just as it struggles when resources are withheld, but more money does not guarantee better schools or more educated students. To determine whether the system as a whole is providing for a general diffusion of knowledge, it is useful to consider how funding levels and mechanisms relate to better-educated students. This, we think, is all the district court did." "The district court did not find that the system is so designed that it cannot accomplish a general diffusion of knowledge as defined by the statutory provisions just quoted. Rather, the district court found that the system is not producing a general diffusion of knowledge because the State has not provided sufficient funding." "In the extensive record before us, there is much evidence, which the district court credited, that many schools and districts are struggling to teach an increasingly demanding curriculum to a population with a growing number of disadvantaged students, yet without additional funding needed to meet these challenges. There are wide gaps in performance among student groups differentiated by race, proficiency in English, and economic advantage. Non-completion and dropout rates are high, and the loss of students who are struggling may make performance measures applied to those who continue appear better than they should. The rate of students meeting college preparedness standards is very low. There is also evidence of high attrition and turnover among teachers statewide, due to increasing demands and stagnant compensation. But the undisputed evidence is that standardized test scores have steadily improved over time, even while tests and curriculum have been made more difficult. By all admission, NAEP scores, which the district court did not mention, show that public education in Texas has improved relative to the other states. Having carefully reviewed the evidence and the district court's findings, we cannot conclude that the Legislature has acted arbitrarily in structuring and funding the public education system so that school districts are not reasonably able to afford all students the access to education and the educational opportunity to accomplish a general diffusion of knowledge." "There is substantial evidence, which again the district court credited, that the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change, whether that change take the form of increased funding, improved efficiencies, or better methods of education. Former Lieutenant Governor Ratliff, the author and principal sponsor of Senate Bill 7 in 1993, echoed the considered judgments of other witnesses at trial when he testified: "I am convinced that, just by my knowledge of the overall situation in Texas, school districts are virtually at the end of their resources, and to continue to raise the standards... is reaching a situation where we're asking people to make bricks without straw." But an impending constitutional violation is not an existing one, and it remains to be seen whether the system's predicted drift toward constitutional inadequacy will be avoided by legislative reaction to widespread calls for changes." "The Legislature may well find many ways of improving the efficiency and adequacy of public education -- ways not urged by the parties to this case -- that do not involve increased funding." "The State also controls the expenditure of more than $1 billion in local tax revenues recaptured from 134 districts, which educate 12.3% of the students, requiring that they be effectively redistributed to the other districts. The number of districts and amount of revenue subject to recapture have almost tripled since 1994. The State's control of this local revenue is a significant factor in considering whether local taxes have become a state property tax." "As we have said since Edgewood I, structural changes, and not merely increased funding, are needed in the public education system to meet the constitutional challenges that have been raised." 

Texas lawmakers have trapped local school districts between the costs of rising state education standards and a constitutional cap on property tax rates, removing local discretion over those taxes, according to the Texas Supreme Court. ``That's unconstitutional, and the court gave lawmakers until June 1 to replace that rig with a legal one. Most bettors think that means a special session of the Legislature after the March primaries and after a group of business leaders makes some recommendations about tax reform, but throw in the usual caveat: Gov. Rick Perry is free to call lawmakers in whenever he wishes. The court saved lawmakers some heartburn, however, overturning sections of a lower court ruling that would have required the state to spend billions to raise the quality of education to an "adequate" level. The justices ruled that while there are serious problems with the performance of the state's public school system, those problems haven't reached the point of being unconstitutional. A lower court had said the state wasn't providing an adequate level of education to students and that the gap between rich and poor district had grown too great. And two economic studies presented in trial court put the costs of adequacy at up to $6 billion. The justices ruled with the state and against the school districts on that question of adequacy, but they didn't do so out of any apparent admiration for the school finance system in Texas. In constitutional terms, part of the state's school finance system is rotten and part of it isn't rotten yet. It's like watching a hungry college student foraging through the refrigerator: Some foods are clearly past tense, and some are not yet foul. The local school property tax is, in the eyes of the court, effectively set by the state. That's unconstitutional, or clearly foul. The adequacy of the system is not unconstitutional, though it's got problems. The way Justice Nathan Hecht wrote it in the majority opinion: "There is substantial evidence, which again the district court credited, that the public education system has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change, whether that change take the form of increased funding, improved efficiencies, or better methods of education," he wrote. "Former Lieutenant Governor Ratliff, the author and principal sponsor of Senate Bill 7 in 1993, echoed the considered judgments of other witnesses at trial when he testified: 'I am convinced that, just by my knowledge of the overall situation in Texas, school districts are virtually at the end of their resources, and to continue to raise the standards... is reaching a situation where we're asking people to make bricks without straw.' But an impending constitutional violation is not an existing one, and it remains to be seen whether the system's predicted drift toward constitutional inadequacy will be avoided by legislative reaction to widespread calls for changes." Justice Scott Brister dissented, and Justice Don Willett recused himself, since before joining the case he had worked on the state's defense as a lawyer in the attorney general's office. In his dissent, Brister said the school districts didn't prove they had no leeway in setting their tax rates and said they should have had to prove they were operating efficiently. He made a plea for competition -- though the issue hadn't been raised by lawyers on either side -- suggesting that might be a way to make sure the schools were giving every penny a full workout. "Today, we know that one thing above all else makes service providers efficient: competition," he wrote. "Even formerly communist countries recognize how efficiency is produced -- not by protectionism, not by higher taxes, and not by state control, but by freedom for competition. Yet the school districts that brought this case never once suggested in six-weeks' evidence that competition might make the Texas school system more efficient. No one considered fundamental reforms that efficiency might demand." The court said 48 percent of the state's school districts were at th4 $1.50 rate and that 67 percent of the districts were either there or within a nickel of it. Those districts educate 81 percent of the state's public school kids. They contrasted those numbers with 1994, the base year used the last time the court ruled on a major school finance case. Then, only 6 percent of the districts were within a nickel of the cap, and 89 percent had rates below $1.40. The decision leaves lawmakers with three lines of attack on school finance. They could raise the cap on local property taxes, giving school districts some headroom and risking the ire of voter/taxpayers. Option number two would be to ease back on state educational requirements that the school districts say are pushing up their costs and forcing them to tax at the top rate. That would likely be seen as a vote to weaken public education. Option number three is to shift the costs from the local property tax to the state. Even if the overall amount being spent on the schools remained the same, the local districts would be able to lower their share of the costs and reinstate their "discretion" over tax rates. That would solve the legal problem, and that's where the state government appears to be going. Gov. Rick Perry has a 24-member committee of business people looking at the tax system and how to wring more money out of state taxpayers while lowering the burden on local taxpayers. And Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick are set to announce a panel of legislators that will figure out how to change school finance to the courts' liking. 

Though they lost the case, state officials were relieved to lose where they did and win where they did. Education groups were disappointed; they won on almost all their arguments in district court, only to have most of that stripped away by the Texas Supreme Court. Attorney General Greg Abbott waited until the second-to-last paragraph of his written statement to mention that the state lost. "However, the Court did find that our current 'Robin Hood' tax system violates the tax provision of Article VIII. The Court gave the Legislature until June 1 of next year to correct the system." Abbott said the court's decision leaves education policymaking in legislative hands. Other state leaders, like Gov. Rick Perry, say the decision means the state doesn't have to "pour money into education" to satisfy its constitutional responsibilities. The court discarded the state's contention that the courts don't have a say in the adequacy of the schools, but ruled that the schools aren't unconstitutionally short of that mark. On that issue and on equity, the state's arguments prevailed. If nothing else, that lowered the price tag on the court's opinion considerably. Economists who testified at the lower court trial estimated it would cost as much as $6.1 billion (and as little as $563 million) to bring students up to passing rates of just 55 percent. Had the high court agreed with District Judge John Dietz, the Legislature would be staring at numbers like those. The districts that sued the state hoped for more from the court on adequacy of the schools and on the gaps between richer and poorer in the state system. They took some solace in the court's finding that the system -- while not unconstitutional -- is "drifting" that way. Don't be surprised to see a lawsuit within a few months on the equity of funding for school facilities. Some lawyers see enough room in the court's latest opinion for a successful suit on those grounds (the court said lawyers hadn't linked facilities funding to education measures; coming back and doing so now could open that window for school districts that need or want to build). Lawyers for the districts say the court's ruling establishes a link between the state's standards for school districts and students and its responsibilities to them. "If we're going to have high standards for all state children, then the state needs to pay for it," said J. David Thompson, who represented some of the districts in the case. "Money has to be part of the equation." Another attorney, Randall "Buck" Wood, says the state missed a bullet: "They said 'we're letting you go this time on adequacy, but you'd better fix it." 

Boyles, Hailey, Wilson, and Perry Sherry Boyles, who considered running for state Democratic Party chairman a couple of years ago, plans to run for the job in June. Current Chairman Charles Soechting won't seek reelection. Boyles is in, as are Boyd Ritchie, an attorney in Graham, and Charlie Urbina Jones, a San Antonio attorney. Boyles, also an attorney, is a former statewide candidate (she lost a Railroad Commission race to Michael Williams in 2002) and a co-founder of Annie's List, a Democratic fundraising group. • Mel Hailey, a former public school teacher who now heads the political science department at at Abilene Christian University, is joining the race to replace Rep. Bob Hunter, R-Abilene, in HD-71. Hailey is a Democrat. Hunter isn't seeking reelection, and the field is growing. Republicans looking hard at the race include Rob Beckham, Kevin Christian, Celia Davis, and Susan King. Beckham lost a close congressional race to Charlie Stenholm in 2002 and is a former member of the Abilene city council. Christian was Hunter's chief of staff and has lately been pushing to name an elementary school aftr his former boss. Davis works in economic development and with military bases and issues in particular. And King was the president of the Abilene school board. • Van Wilson, a developer and a Republican, will run against Rep. Delwin Jones, R-Lubbock, in HD-83. That's getting busy: Frank Morrison, a former Lubbock city councilman, is also getting into that race. • Gov. Rick Perry picked up a couple more endorsements, this time from the Texas Medical Association's political action committee and from the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association.  

Taylor, Dalrymple, and Clark Nicholas Taylor, a Midland attorney and oil and gas exec, will replace lobbyist and former Rep. Ralph Wayne on the Texas Ethics Commission. Taylor was picked by House Speaker Tom Craddick; he's a former member of the State Securities Board and of the Texas Judicial Council. Gail Dalrymple, a lawyer with Clark, Thomas & Winters in Austin, is joining the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Eduardo Rodriguez, president of the State Bar of Texas, appointed her. Jeff Clark was reappointed to another two years on the U.S. Small Business Administration's National Advisory Council. Clark, the former executive director of the National Federation of Business' Texas office, runs a consulting and financial services business.