Vouchers and faith-based government initiatives are more popular with Texans than you might think, according to a statewide poll conducted for the Texas Lyceum. And Texans aren't as conservative about school prayer as the people who represent them, according to that survey.

Nearly two-thirds of Texas adults — 65 percent — said they would support a program "in which parents are given taxpayer money by the government that they can use to pay for a child's tuition at the school of their choice." The poll director, University of Texas at Austin prof Daron Shaw, said that result was a little unexpected; usually, when words like "taxpayer money" are included in the question, the opposition grows. In this poll, 30 percent said they oppose vouchers.

Faith-based initiatives — where the government gives money to religious groups ministering to the poor — found favor with 68 percent of the people surveyed. Support was heavier for those programs and for vouchers among minorities.

Want to display the Ten Commandments in a public place? They're cool with that (60 percent) or don't mind (22 percent). Only 14 percent object to those displays.

Shaw has done a mess of polling and analysis for a client list that includes George W. Bush's presidential campaigns, Fox News and the Texas Poll.

School prayer was a mixed bag, with only 14 percent objecting to any sort of prayer. On the other end of the spectrum, only 16 percent favored denominational prayer and only 22 percent favoring non-denominational prayer. The biggest group — 45 percent — say they prefer a moment of silent reflection so kids can pray as they wish or stare at their shoes or whatever it is they do with quiet moments.

James Henson, who heads the Texas Politics project at UT Austin, said the results catch the nuances in religious practice and what people want from government. "Texans want religion on the menu, but don't want to be force-fed it," he said. He also pointed out some gaps between public opinion and the just-ended legislative session. Vouchers never moved in the Legislature this year, in spite of favorable public opinion, for instance.

Both Henson and Shaw were caught off-guard by the voucher responses. Support for the idea was stronger than they expected. "Voucher is usually a code word that drives the numbers down," Shaw said. But that word was included in the question pollsters posed to respondents.

"When we put this thing together, we had kind of the working hypothesis that Texas is a particularly religious state in a particularly religious society, so therefore we expected a pretty conservative, pretty traditional view across a range of issues," Shaw said. "In fact, there's a lot more subtlety, a lot more nuance that we found."

A couple of findings raised questions about the differences between what people say about themselves and how they actually behave. The respondents were religious, with 68 percent saying they believe the Bible is the literal word of God and 47 percent saying they'd personally had a born-again experience. Nearly three-fourths said they regularly go to church, with 52 percent saying they go once or twice a week. Put a liar's discount on it: Shaw said the tendency to give answers according to "social desirability" usually skews results by eight to 13 percent.

The respondents said they get their news from television, and they were split evenly between cable and broadcast TV. Over three-fourths have Internet access, but only 13 percent get most of their political news there.

The survey of 1,002 adults was done April 26-May 7 and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percent. They're rolling out more results over the next couple of days, and in July will post all of the raw data from the poll so other political scientists, hacks, journalists and hobbyists can see all of the internal data. The Texas Lyceum is a non-profit, non-partisan leadership and public policy group that's been going for more than 25 years. This is the group's first poll and they say they're committed to doing this for at least three years, in the interest of getting a regular third-party poll going in Texas (like those in other states). They focused on religion and politics this time because that's the theme of their annual public meeting, set for July in Austin.

Department of Disclosure: Our editor had a finger in this pie, commenting on the design of the poll before it was done and writing the poll summary you can see online at TexasLyceum.org. That's not an endorsement of the results and doesn't mean the Lyceum's endorsing us, either. Now you know.

Most Texans support the death penalty, favor embryonic stem cell research, and say abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, according to the Texas Lyceum Poll.

That non-profit group surveyed Texans on religion and politics, asking how they feel about the direction of the country and state and for their opinions about perennial public policy issues.

Their answers were at times predictable, at times surprising.

They're worried about the war in Iraq and U.S. troops there, if you ask them about major issues facing the country. Ask them the same thing about the state, and they're all about immigration and schools.

Most — 62 percent — told the pollsters the country is on the wrong track, but they're optimistic about the economy and the future. About two-fifths (43 percent) think the economy is about the same as a year ago. Another 22 percent say it's better, while about 35 percent say it's worse. Their answers are different on their personal economies, with half saying they're in the same shape they were last year, 32 percent saying they're in better shape, and 19 percent saying things are worse.

Only 19 percent of the respondents were against abortions under any circumstances. The two biggest groups said abortions should be allowed at the mother's discretion (37 percent) or only in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother (40 percent). Only 2 percent favor abortions to protect the mothers from economic hardship.

Texans overwhelmingly support the death penalty. Just over a quarter oppose it (15 percent "strongly," 11 percent "somewhat"), while 49 percent strongly support it and 21 percent "somewhat" support that punishment. The numbers drop significantly among minorities: Hispanics support the death penalty, but by lower margins than Whites, while more African Americans oppose the death penalty than support it.

More than half of the respondents — 52 percent — support federally funded embryonic stem cell research, while 36 oppose that work.

This next bit is a rerun. The poll is being presented over three days (presidential election numbers come next) and we ran this stuff on Day One:

The survey of 1,002 adults was done April 26-May 7 and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percent. They're rolling out more results over the next couple of days, and in July will post all of the raw data from the poll so other political scientists, hacks, journalists and hobbyists can see all of the internal data. The Texas Lyceum is a non-profit, non-partisan leadership and public policy group that's been going for more than 25 years. This is the group's first poll and they say they're committed to doing this for at least three years, in the interest of getting a regular third-party poll going in Texas (like those in other states). They focused on religion and politics this time because that's the theme of their annual public meeting, set for July in Austin.

Department of Disclosure: Our editor had a finger in this pie, commenting on the design of the poll before it was done and writing the poll summary you can see online at TexasLyceum.org. That's not an endorsement of the results and doesn't mean the Lyceum's endorsing us, either. Now you know.

The biennial list of the ten best and ten worst legislators from Texas Monthly magazine is out, and you can read it online (until they close the spigot sometime on Friday) at this link: http://www.texasmonthly.com/bestworst2007.

The ten best legislators, in their estimation:

Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas; Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas; Byron Cook, R-Corsicana; Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville; Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston; Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham; Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Garland; Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan; Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston; and Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands.

Their list of the worst:

Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth; Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa; Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland; Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Republican; Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay; Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land; Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville; Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston; Gov. Rick Perry, Republican; and Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball.

Texas Republicans have been licking their chops lately about the prospect of a presidential race with Hillary Clinton topping the Democratic side of the ticket. Their hope? That she turns off Texas voters so badly it'll help all the Republicans and hurt all the Democrats.

But the latest numbers from the statewide Texas Lyceum Poll say those hopes might be misplaced. Clinton's in a virtual tie in a fantasy contest against either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. It doesn't say Texas is becoming a blue state, but it's clearly purple.

Clinton is running ahead of her fellow U.S. Sen. Barack Obama on the Democratic side. Pollster Daron Shaw attributes that to her strength with "traditional Democratic constituencies" and also says she's better known than her opponent. The survey included a sub-sample of Democratic primary voters; with them, Clinton got 33 percent, followed by Obama, at 21 percent, Al Gore, at 10 percent, John Edwards, at 8 percent, and Bill Richardson, at 3 percent. Joe Biden and Denis Kucinich each got 1 percent, and 20 percent of the respondents didn't list a favorite.

Texas Republicans (there were 303 voters in this subset) favor McCain, 27 percent, over Giuliani, 23 percent, Fred Thompson, 11 percent, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, both at 6 percent, Sam Brownback, at 3 percent, Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter, at 1 percent each, and Texas congressman Ron Paul, listed as the favorite by less than 1 percent of those polled. Again, the undecided/don't know/didn't want to say amounted to 20 percent.

In a test of general election preferences, Clinton held her own, getting 35 percent to McCain's 36 percent and 31 percent to Giuliani's 32 percent. With the margins of error in the poll, those are virtual ties (and in the second case, the winner would be Undecided, with 37 percent).

Republicans did better, in the poll, against Obama. McCain got 32 percent to the Illinois senator's 25 percent; Giuliani got 32 percent to Obama's 22 percent. And Undecided rose in this bracket, getting 43 percent of voters in the McCain-Obama race and 46 percent in the Giuliani-Obama race.

The results are available online at the Texas Lyceum's website, along with results they've released over the last couple of days. In July, that organization will put all of the poll information — cross-tabs, data tables, everything — on their website, where political scientists and junkies can dig deeper into the results. Also, they're planning to do similar statewide polls for each of the next two years in an attempt to get an ongoing survey of the state.

And now, the bit we've run each time we've written about this (Day 1 is here, and Day 2 is here):

The survey of 1,002 adults was done April 26-May 7 and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percent. They're rolling out more results over the next couple of days, and in July will post all of the raw data from the poll so other political scientists, hacks, journalists and hobbyists can see all of the internal data. The Texas Lyceum is a non-profit, non-partisan leadership and public policy group that's been going for more than 25 years. This is the group's first poll and they say they're committed to doing this for at least three years, in the interest of getting a regular third-party poll going in Texas (like those in other states). They focused on religion and politics this time because that's the theme of their annual public meeting, set for July in Austin.

Department of Disclosure: Our editor had a finger in this pie, commenting on the design of the poll before it was done and writing the poll summary you can see online at TexasLyceum.org. We remain our regular agnostic selves regarding the poll results. Now you know.

What a lineup! Cancer, taxes, redistricting, and lawsuits...

Now that the cancer research bill is signed, the people promoting it have fired up a website and a campaign to get bonds approved in November to fund the thing. That's got Republicans — Sen. Jane Nelson of Lewisville and Rep. Jim Keffer of Eastland — and Democrats: John Sharp and Cathy Bonner of Austin. It's also got Lance Armstrong, whose star power brought attention to the project. They've formed a political action committee to raise money to promote the bonds.

• We wrote last week that many of the state's apartment owners would love to see the governor kill a tax "corrections" bill that undoes a loophole in the state's new margins tax. That's true, but don't include the Texas Apartment Association in that broad brush. They're officially for the bill, though it'll cost their folks, because it puts all business types on equal footing. Officially, they want him to sign the thing.

• The Annenberg Center for Communications at the University of Southern California has a new redistricting toy designed to let normal humans play with political maps. The Redistricting Game lets you pick a scenario, a political party to represent, and a skill level and then lets you draw (fake) lines. It runs the result through a legislative vote, a gubernatorial signature, and then through the courts (we got bounced on compactness). When you've completed a map and won approval for it, the game asks you whether you have a better understanding of redistricting, and whether you're more likely to support reform of the process now that you've looked at the game.

• The Texas Democratic Party is suing the owner of its Austin headquarters building, which apparently has "dangerous levels of mold." They couldn't get the owners or the property management company to do anything about it; thus, the suit.

Eminent domain is one of the most hotly debated issues in recent memory. While most Texans agree government must occasionally take property to build roads, water lines, power lines and other public projects, many would likewise agree property owners should be fairly compensated for their loss.

In the past couple of decades, the courts have eroded the right of property owners to be fairly compensated when their property is acquired through eminent domain. Thankfully, the 80th Legislature has passed legislation that restores and protects some of those rights. Every Texan can be proud of House Bill 2006.

The U.S. Supreme Court created much controversy when it said in the Kelo v. City of New London case that property could be condemned for economic development purposes. The Legislature restricted such actions in 2005 and has added more protections in HB 2006. According to the bill, "public use" in Texas now means use by "the state, a political subdivision of the state, or the general public." No longer will the government be able to condemn a mom-and-pop business to make way for a big high-rise hotel.

In the past, Texans have been concerned that their properties were targeted for condemnation before they were given the opportunity to be heard. HB 2006 increases accountability by requiring condemning authorities to hold public meetings and record votes before condemning private property.

Another key section of the legislation restricts water and sewer companies from condemning property to gain access to the water rights beneath it. This is an issue of growing concern to Texans, as groundwater supplies become increasingly scarce.

Up to now, Texans whose land had been taken for a public use, only to see the use abandoned within 10 years, were offered the chance to buy the land back -- but at fair market value. In most cases, this value was much higher than the amount the landowners were originally paid. HB 2006 amends this law to require land in this situation to be resold to the owner for the price paid at the time it was condemned.

For decades, condemning authorities have been required to make a landowner an offer to purchase his or her property before filing suit to get title to the property. The law used to require this offer be made in "good faith." Recently, however, courts have held that any offer will do and that a condemnor has satisfied this obligation with the bare minimum of diligence. If HB 2006 becomes law, those days are over.

The new law will require condemnors to make offers based on a "thorough investigation and honest assessment" of the land's value. This will reduce litigation and save money for taxpayers and property owners alike.

Perhaps the most important elements of HB 2006 are the ones that directly affect the compensation due landowners when their property is taken through eminent domain. HB 2006 will ensure that for the land actually acquired, the government must pay for factors that might be considered by a potential buyer in an arms-length transaction.

The bill also addresses the taking of access rights. Texas courts have let condemning authorities escape paying for loss in market value as a result of diminished access, so long as the property has any access to a public right-of-way. HB 2006 requires compensation be paid for "any diminished access to the highway and to or from the remaining property to the extent it affects the fair market value." This is a major step forward.

Critics say HB 2006 will cost the government too much money, to which I say: it is not the responsibility of individual property owners to bear all of the costs of these public projects. The fact is, HB 2006 will not open the public treasury up to huge damage awards to landowners; it simply restores some of the protections that have been eroded in recent years. We all benefit from improvements to the public infrastructure. HB 2006 makes sure the Texans who sacrifice property to build it are treated fairly.

Staples is the state's Agriculture Commissioner.

---

Texas Weekly's Soapbox is a venue for opinions, spins, alternate takes, and other interesting stuff sent in by readers and others. We moderate submissions to keep crazy people out, and anonymous commentary is ineligible. Readers can respond (through the moderator) to things posted here. Got something to submit? We're interested in everything from full-blown opinion pieces to short bits to observations or tidbits that have escaped us and the mass media. One rule: Your name goes on your words. Call or send an email: Ross Ramsey, Editor, Texas Weekly, 512/288-6598, ramsey@texasweekly.com.

Gov. Rick Perry vetoed $650 million from the Legislature's state spending plans and then signed the rest — a two-year, $151.9 billion budget. And he complained that much of the money spent in the budget was out of reach of his veto pen.Perry's press release and the proclamation detailing the cuts are available in our Files section. Perry cut $570 million from the budget itself and cut $76.6 million from HB 15, the supplemental appropriations bill. He praised most of the budget, saying it increases spending on education, human services, criminal justice and the environment. But he complained that it's not transparent and that it ignored opportunities to increase tax relief with some of the $7 billion lawmakers left unspent. Perry got most of his veto savings with two bullets. He killed $297.2 million in Medicare "Part D" funding, saying that cost should be borne by the federal government. Perry (some of his counterparts in other states are on the same page) says Texas is being penalized for the way it operates the program and says the so-called "clawback provisions" that force the state to spend that money should be repealed. His other big-ticket item includes a swipe at community colleges. The governor, accusing them of using state money to pay health and other benefits for employees who aren't on the state payroll, cut $154 million in group insurance contributions from their budgets, saying they can get the money from unexpended balances in other accounts and by dipping into other parts of their budgets. Perry directed particular attention to so-called "special items" in the higher education section of the budget, saying lawmakers spent $1.2 billion "on pet pork projects" outside the regular funding formulas. Of that amount, $123 million was within reach of his veto pen; he axed $35.8 of that. He said he's "more gravely concerned" about college funding than he was when he proposed his own spending plans in February, saying the Lege subverts an "objective professional process" when it tosses formula funding worked out by the schools in favor of local considerations and political pressures. Special items now account for 19.5 percent of higher education funding, he said. "The funding process used by the legislature to write this appropriations act is antiquated, unfair, and keeps Texas from adequately competing at national and global levels," Perry said in his veto proclamation. "Texas is shackled by provincialism, preventing the creation of the workforce and laboratory innovations needed to meet the demands of the Twenty-first Century economy. This must stop." Perry criticized legislators for their sloppy fiscal notes — the price tags put on legislation before it comes to a vote in either chamber. He listed several examples of bills that should have had price tags and didn't, and bills with price tags that clearly didn't match their real costs. The supplemental bill would spend a total of $426.2 billion over the two-year budget period (that amount isn't included, usually, when people are talking about the size of the state budget, nor is the money the state's spending on public education as it takes on costs now borne by local taxpayers). Perry's office didn't immediately say what items in that bill he vetoed to get $76.6 million in cuts there.

Gov. Rick Perry vetoed 49 bills — well short of his record of 82 vetoes — including an eminent domain bill pushed by his fellow conservatives.

HB 2006 would have limited governments' eminent domain powers, which has been a hot issue since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a condemnation done on behalf of private sector developers. Perry said in his veto message that the legislation would have been a windfall to lawyers who handle condemnations. He also objected to a provision that would have forced governments to pay for the lost economic value of land they didn't acquire, if the acquisition itself is what led to the diminished value. He said he'd be for an eminent domain bill without those provisions.

The full list of vetoed bills, along with the veto messages describing the Guv's reasoning, is available online.

The announcement came a couple of days before the deadline; the governor has until Sunday night to dispatch the legislation sent to him by lawmakers, either vetoing it, signing it, or letting it go into law without his signature.