Oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act centered mainly on the action Congress took in 2006 when it renewed the measure for 25 years.

That’s not to say, however, that the nine justices charged with upholding or dismantling the provision won’t consider what’s happened in Texas since then.

Texas is one of nine states completely covered under the act, which mandates federal preclearance (either by a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C., or the U.S. Department of Justice) of election laws in states with histories of racial discrimination. A decision to keep Section 5 intact would prevent the state's voter ID law from taking effect in its current form and all future laws that affect voting would still be under federal scrutiny. It could also doom the redistricting maps drawn in 2011 by the Legislature; those maps didn't make it over the preclearance hurdle.

“They could also reach beyond 2006 and say, ‘It was reasonable because you have all these problems in section 5 jurisdictions including Texas,’” said Michael Li, an attorney who writes a well-respected blog at Texas Redistricting and Election Law.

If that is the case, Li said, an amicus brief filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus and the Texas chapter of the NAACP, could help sway Justice Anthony Kennedy, who Li and media outlets in Washington said is the swing vote. Kennedy expressed concerns over whether the act infringes on states’ rights.

The Texas groups' brief specifically cites what the lower court called the state Legislature’s discriminatory intent in drawing redistricting maps, and what the judges said about the state’s voter ID bill, saying it is a “retrogressive law that the court condemned as ―almost certain to disproportionately affect racial minorities.”

Attorney General Greg Abbott, who filed an amicus brief in support of Shelby County — that is, against continuing Section 5 — said Supreme Courts existed to overturn lower courts and said that fact has already boded well for the state in one instance.

“We’ve seen that already with the redistricting process in Texas when after the first redistricting decision came out of the lower courts, we got a unanimous Supreme Court to overturn that,” said Abbott, who served on the Texas Supreme Court before becoming AG. “The lower court is just the first step along the way and we should all be respectful of higher court review.”

He also warned against forecasts based on this week's oral arguments.

“As a former Texas Supreme Court justice, I can be the first to tell you, you can’t read too much in to what justices say from the bench,” he said. “Second thing, though, that may give greater insight here, is looking more at the level of consistency of the comments from the bench with prior written statements by some of the key justices.”

Those statements include Justice Kennedy’s concerns on federalism. According to Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog, Kennedy "used the phrase 'trusteeship of the United States government' as a shorthand way to describe how he views the regime set up by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Of course, he meant it as a denunciation."

That said, Abbott urged patience.

“But again, no one can take to the bank any statement made from the bench by a justice because they are going through the evaluative process,” he said. “We really won’t know until a decision comes out.”

A decision is expected in June, Abbott said. The state will decide then how it will move forward, he added.

Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama in Texas, winning in 25 of the state's 36 congressional districts, 20 of the state's 31 Senate districts and 96 of its 150 House districts. These maps, based on numbers provided by the Texas Legislative Council, let you mouse over each district to see what happened there in the November general election for president.

Download the data here.

In this week's Newsreel: The Supreme Court heard arguments in a voting rights case that could have a big impact on Texas, Republican legislators side with Gov. Rick Perry on Medicaid expansion, and voters will decide on Saturday who will represent Senate District 6.

You can view the video at: https://trib.it/Wk3u1t

This week, we asked the insiders about gun laws, abortion restrictions, school vouchers, and the Voting Rights Act, and the results start with a 50-50 split.

Asked to choose between two descriptions of publicly funded private school vouchers, half of the insiders said vouchers give parents the opportunity to move children from failing schools, and half said they remove state funds from the schools that need them most.

More than half of the insiders oppose Gov. Rick Perry’s proposal for a “fetal pain” bill that would outlaw abortions after the 20th week of pregnancies, with twice as many strongly opposed as strongly supportive.

A slight majority — 53 percent — said they would favor a ban on high-capacity magazines for guns. And 85 percent support criminal and mental health background checks on all gun purchases, including  gun shows sales and private sales.

Just over a third support allowing faculty, staff and students to carry concealed weapons on college campuses, but 45 percent would allow more teachers to carry concealed weapons in public schools. A big majority — 83 percent — opposes easing concealed handgun licensing requirements.

With the U.S. Supreme Court hearing a challenge to a key section of the Voting Rights Act, we asked the insiders whether Texas ought to remain under federal oversight when changing its election laws. A majority — 52 percent — said no.

The full set of verbatim comments to our questions is attached, and a sampling follows.

There has been a lot of talk in the news lately about school voucher programs that would enable parents to move their children into other public or private schools. Which of the following positions do you prefer?

• "Texas public schools are on fire. Until we fix public school finance, vouchers and charters are a distraction at best. Let's focus on serving the other 95% of students first."

• "'Excellence demands competition. Without a race there can be ...no excellence- in education or in any other walk of life.' --Ronald Reagan"

• "Giving public money and student load to a private school results in the private school increasing faculty and facilities to accommodate, and thus dependence upon the public money to sustain. Eventually the 'public' will demand accountability for the money and the private schools will be hard pressed to say no to the money, and by default become less independent and 'private.'"

• "I think these choices are emblematic of the rhetorical positioning used by both sides of the debate. I do not think the vouchers issue is dividable into these dichotomous positions. There is a myriad of benefits to both sides of the debate but as long as it pitched as all or nothing, then there cannot be a debate about vouchers and school choice."

• "What about just letting students and their families have access to the schools - public or private - that suit them best and sending the money to the schools they choose? All students in the public deserve an education from the public. Why does that mean government monopoly schools?"

• "Competition always works."

• "Moving to another PUBLIC SCHOOL would not cost a dime more. That's what I support."

• "Let's provide strong public school choice. Vouchers without accountability is a mistake."

• "Every student and family should have a choice of schools. At present, only the wealthy do."

Do you support or oppose a so-called “fetal pain” proposal that would ban abortion after 20 weeks?

• "Red meat for South Carolina. Being held captive by Governor Perry's ambitions in 2011 was maddening. Now it's just a slow car wreck happening before our eyes."

• "Get government out of our personal decisions."

• "Lots of critical issues facing Texas--education, water and transportation just to name a few. This divisive social stuff is old hat, and is stopping Republicans from attracting younger voters. This is the kind of stuff that the Battleground Texas people dream about."

• "Support--but 'pain' shouldn't be the issue. That implies it is acceptable to terminate a life that doesn't feel 'pain,' and that type of mentality leads to eugenics and worse."

• "If you had an option of 'don't care', I would have hit that one instead of 'don’t know'"

• "I'm not a woman."

• "Such decisions should be made by women and their doctors."

• "Though detest the incrementalism. Abortion should be illegal, in spite of what the Supreme Court has held. It was illegal in Texas before Roe v. Wade. We should follow our own law and remove the exception for mothers and doctors that was added to accommodate the Supreme Court. It certainly wouldn't be the first time Texas has challenged the federal govt."

• "Fat, old, white guys should not be making decisions for women."

As you may know, high-capacity magazines or clips can hold many rounds of ammunition, so a shooter can fire more rounds without manually reloading. Would you favor or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines that hold many rounds of ammunition?

• "What exactly are people so afraid of that they need this kind of firepower? Over-compensate much?"

• "Don't ban guns. Ban ammunition."

• "'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...' How can we do that with only 3 bullets in our clip?"

• "As a lifelong hunter, there is no reason for anyone to have high capacity clips. Period."

• "I am not sure the clip debate is fruitful. It strikes me that with each of these shootings, the intent and power are there to act and the clip size does not necessarily change the way these shooters proceed."

• "Criminals don't obey gun laws"

• "As much as I hate to say it, 'high capacity magazines don't kill people....'"

• "I guess the bad guys would have to carry more guns to compensate for the fewer rounds in their clips...because, you know, criminals like to follow the law."

• "Slippery Slope."

• "1000% oppose."

Do you support or oppose requiring criminal and mental health background checks on all gun purchases in the United States, including at gun shows and for private sales?

• "It seems impractical with private sales."

• "I have a concern that mandating mental health background checks would create another barrier to people seeking mental health services. We want to remove barriers to mental health services, not further stigmatize them. Requiring a criminal background check is a no-brainer, regardless of where the gun is purchased."

• "I just don't know how you would administer a mental health check other than the absence of a record is the desirable state. Any system has the potential of abuse, more so this one."

• "This amounts to a gun registration program that historically always leads to confiscation of guns."

• "I generally support background checks...the problem is going to be in the regulation of private sales. A background check is already required at gun shows for anyone who is in the business of selling guns."

• "No to private gun sales"

Please tell us whether you support or oppose the following proposals on guns currently being discussed in the Texas Legislature: (guns on college campuses, concealed weapons for teachers or other officials at public schools, easing CHL requirements)

• "We need to abandon the fiction that 'gun-free zones' actually keep out bad guys with guns."

• "What is this--Gunsmoke with Marshal Matt Dillon? Guns in schools and on college campuses only endanger my kids, not protect them."

• "Regarding public schools, I don't think the teachers need to have them in the classroom, but I do support other trained/vetted school staff having access to firearms."

• "While I believe more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is a positive, I believe individual campuses should be able to make their own decisions. That way parents and students could make the decision on where to attend college."

• "Current CHL classes are a joke. Probably 15-20% of the legal information conveyed by my instructor was incorrect. I have no problem with letting people be armed, but let's at least train them properly on the law and on proper procedures/techniques!"

• "We've got multiple issues here: constitutional right to arms, right to self-protect, proper training, etc. I don't think anyone is advocating allowing anyone and everyone to carry without some sort of training (military, CHL, law enforcement, etc.). Those who are responsible enough to seek and obtain proper training should be allowed to carry free of govt restrictions on where they can carry."

• "If an office rolls up on an active shooter at a school today, it is simple: shoot the guy with the gun. If you allow campus carry, it becomes: which guy with the gun is the bad guy?"

• "Conceptually, 'gun control,' of course misses the point if the point is to ascertain some halfway sensible approach to the reduction of random violence in our society. As usual, what we are seeing here is legislation by headline, which will serve no purpose but to exacerbate the friction that has always been present in this area."

• "If the underlying point of the three choices is that more guns are needed on college and public school campuses, then let's buck up and pay for as many well-trained law enforcement officers as are necessary and let the faculty and students concentrate on learning."

• "More people with guns will not solve the problems. Period."

As you may know, Texas has a history of discrimination in its election laws. Because of this, Texas is required to request federal approval before implementing any changes to its voting procedures or election practices. Do you think Texas should still be subject to federal supervision, or do you think Texas should be able to change its voting and election practices without the approval of the federal government?

• "If Texas ever wants to rid itself of the shameful history that created the need for this oversight, it needs to move toward a non-partisan re-districting commission."

• "50 years. The time has come."

• "Either all states should have to go through this process or none should."

• "The VRA as applied in Texas seems geared more toward preserving seats for Democrats than addressing vestiges of discrimination from a bygone era."

• "There is no reason to change the federal approval requirement for certifying the structure of elections. The history in every election suggests that a neutral honest-broker is needed for EVERY state to ensure the redistricting passes muster."

• "It is absurd that Texas is still under this restriction while states including Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey, with decades of election corruption are under no supervision at all -- simply because they are northern states."

• "Fewer than 50 years have gone by since passage of the Voting Rights Act. There are at least two generations of voters alive today who witnessed wholesale violations of the most fundamental right of American citizens--to participate in determining the course of our nation. Further, such illegal, unconstitutional and anti-democratic actions by public officials did not end in 1965 but continue. The application of Section 5 of the Act to only a handful of states and localities is indeed wrong--Section 5 should apply to ANY jurisdiction that cannot demonstrate consistent success in ensuring the voting rights of all citizens and providing appropriate consideration for millions of historically and recently disenfranchised voters."

• "The 2011 Legislative session's redistricting/voter ID actions provide substantive proof of the need for Texas to continue to be subject to preclearance."

• "Good God, this group needs some adult supervision."

• "Discrimination was wrong. And is correctly gone. Texas can take care of our own voting laws without federal oversight."

• "Texas is its own worst enemy. If the Legislature could get through a redistricting without obviously attempting to reduce minority representation it might have an argument. Of course, by then the minority population will be too big to get around anyway."

• "I had come to the conclusion that Texas had paid its dues for past discrimination. Then, the last Legislature offered up its redistricting plan. I changed my mind."

• "These preclearance requirements are long past their usefulness. There's no more prejudice or bias in Texas these days than in Connecticut or North Dakota. Unfortunately, the legislature's dumb 2011 voting fraud bill -- inadequate sensitivity to those without a DL -- undercut this reality."

• "The most recent redistricting and voter ID legislation proves that Texas is not beyond federal oversight."

• "To borrow from Voltaire, 'hawks will eat pigeons whenever they find them.'"

Our thanks to this week's participants: Gene Acuna, Cathie Adams, Brandon Aghamalian, Jenny Aghamalian, Clyde Alexander, George Allen, Jay Arnold, Charles Bailey, Dave Beckwith, Andrew Biar, Allen Blakemore, Tom Blanton, Chris Britton, David Cabrales, Lydia Camarillo, Kerry Cammack, Thure Cannon, Snapper Carr, William Chapman, Elna Christopher, James Clark, Kevin Cooper, Beth Cubriel, Randy Cubriel, Curtis Culwell, Denise Davis, Hector De Leon, Tom Duffy, David Dunn, Richard Dyer, Jeff Eller, Jack Erskine, Norman Garza, Dominic Giarratani, Bruce Gibson, Eric Glenn, Kinnan Golemon, Daniel Gonzalez, Jim Grace, John Greytok, Michael Grimes, Jack Gullahorn, Clint Hackney, Wayne Hamilton, Bill Hammond, Ken Hodges, Steve Holzheauser, Deborah Ingersoll, Cal Jillson, Jason Johnson, Karen Johnson, Mark Jones, Robert Jones, Walt Jordan, Robert Kepple, Richard Khouri, Tom Kleinworth, Sandy Kress, Pete Laney, Dick Lavine, Luke Legate, Leslie Lemon, Richard Levy, Ruben Longoria, Matt Mackowiak, Matt Matthews, Dan McClung, Parker McCollough, Scott McCown, Mike McKinney, Debra Medina, Robert Miller, Bee Moorhead, Mike Moses, Nelson Nease, Keats Norfleet, Pat Nugent, Nef Partida, Gardner Pate, Tom Phillips, Wayne Pierce, Richard Pineda, Allen Place, Royce Poinsett, Kraege Polan, Jerry Polinard, Gary Polland, Jay Propes, Ted Melina Raab, Bill Ratliff, Shannon Ratliff, Karen Reagan, Tim Reeves, Patrick Reinhart, Kim Ross, Jeff Rotkoff, Jason Sabo, Andy Sansom, Jim Sartwelle, Stan Schlueter, Bruce Scott, Christopher Shields, Julie Shields, Jason Skaggs, Brian Sledge, Ed Small, Martha Smiley, Todd Smith, Larry Soward, Dennis Speight, Jason Stanford, Bob Stein, Bob Strauser, Colin Strother, Michael Quinn Sullivan, Sherry Sylvester, Jay Thompson, Russ Tidwell, Trent Townsend, Trey Trainor, Joe Valenzuela, Ken Whalen, Darren Whitehurst, Seth Winick, Peck Young, Angelo Zottarelli.

Monday, March 4

• House International Trade and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee hearing (10 a.m.)
• House Pensions Committee hearing (10 a.m.)
• Senate Nominations Committee hearing (11 a.m.)
• House Elections Committee hearing (2 p.m.)
• House Investments and Financial Services Committee hearing (2 p.m.)
• House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee hearing (2 p.m.)
• House Land and Resource Management Committee hearing (2 p.m.)
• House Technology Committee hearing (2 p.m.)
• House Ways and Means Committee hearing (2 p.m.)
• Senate Finance Committee hearing (3 p.m.)

Tuesday, March 5

• House Appropriations Committee hearing (7:30 a.m.)
• House Natural Resources Committee hearing (8 a.m.)
• House Transportation Committee hearing (8 a.m.)
• Senate Education Committee hearing (8:30 a.m.)
• Senate Finance Committee hearing (9 a.m.)
• House Business and Industry Committee hearing (10:30 a.m.)
• House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee hearing (10:30 a.m.)
• House Human Services Committee hearing (10:30 a.m.)
• House Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee hearing (noon)
• House Insurance Committee hearing (2 p.m.)
• House Public Education Committee hearing (2 p.m.)

Wednesday, March 6

• House Agriculture and Livestock Committee hearing (8 a.m.)
• Senate Economic Development Committee hearing (8 a.m.)
• Senate Transportation Committee hearing (8 a.m.)
• Senate Finance Committee hearing (9 a.m.)
• Senate Veteran Affairs and Military Installations Committee hearing (1:30 p.m.)
• House Corrections Committee hearing (2 p.m.)
• House Culture, Recreation and Tourism Committee hearing (2 p.m.)

Thursday, March 7

• House Appropriations Committee hearing (7:30 a.m.)
• House Defense and Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing (8 a.m.)
• House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee hearing (8 a.m.)
• Senate Finance Committee hearing (9 a.m.)
• Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing

School Choice is a moral imperative. The education of one’s child is the most important decision parents will make affecting their child’s future and success in life. Thankfully, in Texas we have some great political leaders like Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and Sen. Dan Patrick who want to empower parents with the freedom to make that critical decision for their children.

Every Texan has the freedom to buy the car they want and shop at the supermarket they wish, yet only the rich have choice regarding the education of their children. Why in a free society do we deny parents the right to school choice? This just does not seem to be fair, nor is it equitable.

Education should be about kids; unfortunately, many people are more protective of the ‘institution of education’ than of student education. I personally witnessed this during 13 weeks of the school finance trial. Much evidence was presented to the court regarding the interest of schools and school personnel. Many testified that ‘this law’ or ‘that rule’ were in place due to adult interest, not student interest.

That is the nature of a politically driven system. As a school union leader once said: “Kids don’t vote.”

The sad fact is that many of the restrictions imposed upon our education system actually harm rank and file teachers as well as students. Expert witnesses for the school districts, for the state, and for the efficiency interveners agreed, under oath, that teacher pay would increase if school choice were implemented.

Our great teachers are grossly underpaid. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, and all other professionals earn more than teachers, not because of union power, nor because of political power, but instead because of market forces. Competition for good professionals drives up earnings. Unfortunately in the public school monopsony, earnings can only be increased through political action.

Great teachers should be able to earn at least $150,000 a year or more. They should be able to earn as much as lawyers, dentists, or CPAs. Unfortunately, the defenders of the status quo do not want teachers to recognize that they would earn more with choice, but it’s true. A school district does not pay the losing coach the same as a winning coach. If more schools were in the market and recruiting teachers, teachers would earn more money and have better working conditions.

The mantra of school choice opponents is: Save our Schools. In fact, the best way to save our schools would be to implement school choice. Evidence from places where school choice has been tried indicates that the public schools actually improve when students have a choice. That is consistent with all know economic research. When customers have a choice, vendors try harder to meet customer needs.

Choice will not harm public education. Do you care whether you go to a private or public hospital? No — you just want the best health care for your needs. It amazes me how little faith school leaders have in themselves and their schools. They assume that given a choice, all the students will leave. That is not a good commentary on their confidence.

In Milwaukee, where school choice has been in place for several decades, only about 25% of the eligible students participate in the program. Texas public schools now have about five million students, and a student growth rate of about two percent per year. If school choice were implemented in Texas, the best estimates are that participation would approximately offset enrollment growth Therefore, even with a full choice program in place, our public schools would still have about 5 million students enrolled a decade later. 

School choice is an issue of freedom, liberty, and civil rights. Choice would empower parents to select the best schools for their children and would empower teachers to earn more. Our failing schools would improve. We must stop using students and teachers as pawns to protect the status quo.

Everyone wants to save our schools. But, more importantly we want to Save Our Students! The constitutional purpose of the education clause in the Texas Constitution is to protect the “liberties and rights” of the people. Liberty requires freedom of choice!

Kent Grusendorf is a former state representative.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. And so too is a voucher. Having failed so many times in past legislative sessions to get a public school voucher bill out of the Texas Legislature and on to the governor who is willing to sign it, supporters have regrouped and developed a new strategy.

Voucher proponents have come up with new names such as “education tax credits” and “taxpayer savings grants.” In the 2003 legislative session, they were referred to as “freedom scholarships.” The latest rendition of this tired theme comes from Senate Education Committee Chair Dan Patrick, R-Houston. Speaking at a news conference held at a private school back in December, Patrick called for a “tax credit scholarship” which would be funded through contributions from businesses that would then receive tax credits from the state.

So, just as death and taxes are certainties, we can be sure that several cloaked voucher bills will be introduced during this 83rd Texas Legislature. No matter how it is sliced and diced, no matter its moniker, if passed it will result in public dollars going to private schools.

Although the odds of getting such a bill to the governor’s desk remain difficult, they have never been better for proponents. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who also attended Patrick’s news conference, is a supporter of Patrick’s initiative and is a voucher supporter. Another voucher supporter is Michael Williams, the state’s relatively new commissioner of education.

Previous voucher bills have gone down in flames in the Texas House, and Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, has indicated a similar fate might be in store this time. However, with a push from such powerful legislators, along with support from any number of business leaders, major financial donors, the Texas Catholic Conference, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and the Texas Association of Non-Public Schools, there has never been a better time for a voucher bill to get through. At the very least, a pilot program, as suggested by Dewhurst, could have wide appeal.

If it should come to pass that a voucher program, even a pilot program, gets through the Legislature this session and public funds begin flowing into private schools, Texas taxpayers must demand the same accountability measures that are demanded of our public schools. Patrick believes that since these would be “scholarship” funds, private schools should not have to abide by the same testing and accountability standards.

It’s accountability that is the engine driving more rigorous testing, pay for performance and other measures. When billions of taxpayer dollars are funneled into our public schools, those of us footing the bill have a right to know how our money is being spent. If any of those dollars find their way onto private school campuses, be they secular or sectarian, we should expect and are entitled to the same standards of accountability placed on our public schools.

Private schools receiving public funds should be subject to the state’s open meetings and open information laws, conduct their board meetings in public and take all votes in open sessions. All financial records, including budgets, staff salaries, vendor contracts and other data must be made available for public review. Students should be required to take all mandated state tests and the results should be published.

It simply is not asking too much for all schools receiving public funds to play by the same rules. Voucher supporters like to refer to public schools as “government schools” bogged down with bureaucratic rules and regulations and delivering a sub-standard product. If private schools funded with public money are not to be subject to the same standards, then release our public schools from the never-ending mandates, restrictions and regulations they are now required to operate under.

Play fair, it’s the American way.

Ken Zornes is executive director of Texas Business and Education Coalition, a former classroom teacher and Dallas ISD trustee. He can be contacted at kzornes13@hotmail.com.

The race to replace the late Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, is coming to an end this weekend after a hard-fought primary runoff between Rep. Carol Alvarado and former Harris County Commissioner Sylvia Garcia. Saturday is Election Day. If Alvarado wins, it will set up another special election to fill her seat in the House. 

Political folk in Texas and elsewhere are waiting now to see what the U.S. Supreme Court will do with the latest challenge to the Voting Rights Act. Texas filed friendly briefs in an Alabama case challenging the provision that requires states with histories of discrimination to get federal permission before changing voting laws, redistricting maps or anything having to do with elections. Those states say the law doesn’t apply to all the states and so should not apply to them. Their opponents — including many from Texas —say the state was found to be intentionally discriminating when drawing maps in 2011 and still needs federal oversight.

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, a Republican, wants Gov. Rick Perry to change his mind and expand the state’s Medicaid program to take care of uninsured Texans with initially generous federal funding. Perry isn’t having any of that, and a couple of key state lawmakers took his side of that debate this week. Eight Republican governors have jumped in, and it is difficult to tell at this stage whether this is the end of a conversation or the start of one.

A national effort to raise the Democratic Party flag in Texas, Battleground Texas, rolled out this week with high aspirations. The group wants to increase voter registration and more to the point, voter participation. Fewer than 600,000 people voted in last year’s statewide Democratic primaries, out of 13.1 million registered voters. That was less than half the size of the turnout in the Republican primary which, at about 8 percent of the voting age population, was nothing to crow about, either. Jeremy Bird and Jenn Brown from the president’s last campaign will head the effort, with a Texan, Christina Gomez, coming from the Democratic National Committee as digital director.

Democratic financier and one-time candidate Mikal Watts is under investigation by the Secret Service, according to the San Antonio Express-News, in a case apparently sparked by questions about some of his clients in the BP oil spill, and whether they had hired Watts, as claimed, or not. No charges have been filed, and Watts’ lawyer told the paper his client has played by the rules throughout the case.

State Rep. Ron Reynolds, D-Missouri City, was accused of barratry — in English, that’s illegal solicitation of legal clients — but the Harris County District Attorney has decided not to pursue any charges. The case was built on testimony from a former DA’s investigator who is now accused of selling comic books collected as evidence in another case, according to a spokeswoman for the DA. 

Ann Bishop completed a quick circuit of the governor's office this week, giving up her post as chief of staff to Rick Perry and returning to the Employee Retirement System, where she is executive director. She replaced Jeff Boyd when Perry named him to the Texas Supreme Court. And she will be replaced by her deputy, Brandy Marty. Marty's deputy, in turn, will be Mike Morrissey. 

Gov. Rick Perry appointed...

• Starr Bauer of Beeville as judge of the 36th Judicial District Court for San Patricio, Aransas, Bee, Live Oak and McMullen counties. She is a partner at Bauer and Bauer, and at Bauer Title Group.

• Roman Chavez of Spring and Cynthia Tauss of League City to the Board of Pardons and Paroles. He is retired from the Houston Police Department and now works at the Lone Star College System Police Department. She is a board member of the Texas Lottery Commission.

• Ellis County Judge Carol Bush of Waxahachie, Scott Fisher of Bedford, Becky Gregory of Dallas, David “Scott” Matthew of Georgetown, and Mary Lou Mendoza of San Antonio to the Texas Juvenile Justice Board. Fisher is senior pastor at Metroplex Chapel of Euless. Gregory is an attorney with Curran Tomko LLP. Matthew is executive director of Williamson County Juvenile Services and a municipal judge. Mendoza is an elementary school principal. Bush, Fisher and Mendoza are reappointments.

• Rod Bordelon Jr. to another term as commissioner of Workers’ Compensation at the Texas Department of Insurance.

• Ray Wilkerson of Austin as presiding officer of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority.

• Scott McLaughlin of El Paso to another term as presiding officer of the Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority. He’s president of Stagecoach Cartage and Distribution.

• E. Delbert Horton III of Cooper as presiding officer of the Sulphur River Regional Mobility Authority. He is an engineer and an assistant professor at Texas A&M University at Commerce.

Deaths: Vance Miller, a Republican activist and donor and Dallas real estate baron, apparently from a heart attack. His wife, Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, serves on the State Board of Education. He was 79.