John Otto: Another one bites the dust

"And he spoke to the congregation, saying, “Depart now from the tents of these wicked men! Touch nothing of theirs, lest you be consumed in all their sins.”
Numbers 16:26

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd, another Straus lieutenant retires:

After a decade in the Texas House and fresh off his first session as chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, state Rep. John Otto, R-Dayton, announced Tuesday that he is not planning to seek re-election.

“I want to thank the voters of House District 18 for their support and encouragement over the years," Otto said in a statement. "This was not an easy decision, but I never intended for this experience to be a lifelong endeavor. After accomplishing much of what I set out to do when first elected, the time is right for me to step aside."

Otto, 66, joined the House in 2005 after stints on the Dayton City Council and Dayton Independent School Board.

[Author's Note: Emphasis added.]

It's impossible to overstate the importance of what just happened.  While he keeps a lower profile (and isn't nearly as big of a jerk), John Otto is a Straus subordinate on par with Byron Cook and Charlie Geren.  Otto has spoken or been on a panel at nearly every lobby event we've ever attended in Austin.

Appropriations chairmen don't retire lightly.  While Otto isn't disgraced the way Jim Pitts was when he left, this is still the second session in a row where the appropriations chair isn't coming back.  If you need to know anything about how being a member of Straus' leadership team goes over in the rest of the state, that's it.

The best reaction to Otto's retirement cam from the Texas Public Employees Association:

Retiring House Appropriations Committee Chair John Otto is a past recipient of the TPEA Legislator of the Year Award. We will miss working with him.
Posted by Texas Public Employees Association on Tuesday, July 7, 2015

\

Bottom Line: If Otto's throwing in the towel, keep an eye on Drew Darby and John Zerwas as the next to retire....

-----

Update: Apparently, Darby announced a re-election bid in late June; serves us right for not reading Quorum Report.

Dan Flynn ruins the Fourth of July

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."
Mark 7:21-23

Fresh off his failure to impeach Wallace Hall at Joe Straus' behest, Dan Flynn made quite the scene at a Fourth of July parade this past weekend:

On Saturday, July 4^th, Lakeside Baptist Church in Canton sponsored a July 4^th celebration. There were concessions, fireworks, games, music, and folks enjoying one another’s company. 

At one point in the festivities, State Rep. Dan Flynn (HD-2) arrived for a presentation of an American and a Texas flag to a local veterans’ organization.

Many attendees viewed Flynn’s flag dedication as a clumsy attempt at campaigning.  “Clumsy” because as he was presenting the American flag, he dropped it on the ground, and when he held up the Texas flag, it was backwards.

“Campaigning” because Flynn will be facing challenger Bryan Slaton for his seat, who is supported by the Tea Party.  Rep. Flynn knows that his reelection will be an uphill battle, and if he isn’t worried, he should be.

Maybe he should have rehearsed.

Customary protocol dictates that when presenters go before an audience, they are supposed to recognize any VIPs or public officials who may be in attendance. 

State Senator Bob Hall was there, because Lakeside is his home church, but Flynn ignored him.

Read the whole thing here.

Cecil Bell and School Choice

"Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is."
Ephesians 5:17

Two sessions ago, during the 83rd #TXLEGE, team Straus tacked an anti-school choice amendment onto the House version of the budget; the amendment stated:

“Use of Appropriated Funds for School Vouchers or to Support Tax-Credit Scholarships Prohibited. Money appropriated to the Texas Education Agency by this Act may not be used to pay for or support school vouchers or scholarships for private primary or secondary education provided by non-profit entities using donations received from entities that receive tax credits as a result of the donations.”

Cecil Bell voted for it.

It's not surprising; Bell is from a rural district and rural Republicans are the biggest obstacle to school choice because school districts are often the largest employers in their district.

Still, it's revealing....

(h/t Empower Texans)

Frivolous attacks against Ken Paxton

"Have I not commanded you? Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go."
Joshua 1:9

National Review reviews the charges:

Paxton determines that the “newly minted federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage can and should peaceably coexist with longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.” First addressing the rights of county clerks and their employees to abstain from taking part in the issuance of a same-sex marriage license, Paxton modestly concludes that “the strength of any claim under employment laws or the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts depends on the particular facts of each case.” (Among other things, his opinion reasonably indicates, the accommodation of religious objections may be more necessary when there are other employees in the office who will perform the task.) Ditto for justices of the peace and judges who would like to abstain from conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies: “the strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts.”

In yet further evidence of the mendacious intolerance of the Left, some 150 Texas attorneys (according to this article) have signed a letter threatening to file a complaint with the State Bar of Texas over Paxton’s opinion. The letter ridiculously misrepresents Paxton’s opinion as an “edict to encourage Texas clerks to violate a direct ruling of the United State Supreme Court” and claims that Paxton is thus violating his duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. According to the article, a former state legislator has already filed a State Bar complaint against Paxton on the same baseless ground. (The article itself also falsely states that Paxton’s opinion “tell[s] Texas clerks they did not have to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if it violated their religious beliefs.”)

The pursuit of same-sex marriage through the courts rather than the democratic processes has trampled or corrupted virtually every tenet of the rule of law. It’s beyond parody that the same movement that encouraged state attorneys general to violate their ethical duties by failing to defend state marriage laws would now complain about Paxton’s careful and nuanced advice to the state lieutenant governor.

 Mark Pulliam has more detail:

Paxton’s opinion was a mainstream overview of the principles governing religious accommodation in the government workplace, ultimately concluding that employees with bona fide religious objections to participating in same-sex marriages (a highly fact-specific inquiry) should assign such tasks to other employees who do not have such objections. Paxton did not advocate nullification of or civil disobedience to Obergefell, but merely explained the relevant legal authorities under the First Amendment, applicable employment laws, and state and federal Religious Freedom Restoration Acts.

Yet Paxton now faces a State Bar complaint alleging that he violated the rules of professional conduct by instructing county clerks to “break the law.” And approximately 150 lawyers signed a letter threatening to bring charges against Paxton if he doesn’t withdraw his legal opinion. Acknowledging the existence of religious objections to Obergefell, it seems, is tantamount to violating the Constitution and allegedly constitutes grounds for disbarment. This may be nothing but a publicity stunt, but it was widely (and credulously) reported in the local media in Texas.

Assessing a potential Cecil Bell speaker's run

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan."
Proverbs 29:2

Yesterday, Cecil Bell floated the idea of running for speaker.  It's a possibility that leaves us with mixed feelings.  We can explain.

Cecil Bell is a strong social conservative (and that's good), we have questions about the degree to which he's conservative across the board.  In two sessions in the Texas House, Cecil Bell has gotten a 71 and a 74 from Empower Texans; Scott Turner, by contrast, got a 100 each time.  Furthermore, we don't think we've ever seen him at a TPPF event.

One of the biggest mistakes Christians make in political activism is our terrible habit of voting for people who follow what the Bible says on life and marriage, but fail to follow the Bible on economics.  As government expands, the Church always contracts.  If you give away your economic liberty, eventually they're going to come for your religious liberty as well.

Furthermore, Cecil Bell voted for pre-K.

But all is not lost!!!  Cecil Bell has something else going for him that is potentially VERY attractive.  He voted for Straus and got nothing, and that could be the basis for a VERY strong campaign.

Cecil Bell could potentially destroy the notion that there's anything to be gained for conservatives by "getting a seat at the table" or playing an "inside game" with Straus.  That would make life very uncomfortable for the conservative when convenient crowd.  We can already see Drew Springer, Tan Parker, and Jason Isaac squirming.

Bottom Line: It could work, but we have several questions we'd need answered before we get on board.

Texas Supreme Court strikes blow for liberty

"Consider the work of God;
For who can make straight what He has made crooked?"
Ecclesiastes 7:13

Unlike the Feds, at least the Texas Supreme Court understands a thing or two about economic liberty:

So it’s not the U.S. Supreme Court throwing wrenches into the state’s new abortion restrictions or affirmative action programs or same-sex marriage prohibitions. But in all the excitement over the recent flurry of high-profile high court opinions, readers may have missed the Texas Supreme Court’s hair-raising decision last week that the rules governing occupational licensing have to, well, actually make sense.

The long-running dispute between eyebrow threaders — they run tightened thread loops along the surface of the skin to pluck eyebrows — and state regulators began in 2008, when the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation officially declared threading a cosmetology procedure. That meant the profession, which is commonly practiced by East Asians, was subject to the same regulations that applied to hair stylists.

Those rules require lengthy and expensive education. Cosmetologists typically pay between $9,000 and $20,000 for 750 hours of training over 9 months in everything from basic sanitation to facial treatments, color psychology, anatomy, aroma therapy, and so on.

Yet, the threaders noted in their legal filings, nothing in the state-licensed cosmetology curriculum says anything about eyebrow threading. As a result, only a tiny handful of schools offer the training. And the subject appears nowhere on the state cosmetology exam every student must pass before becoming licensed.

....

In its June 26 decision, the justices voted 6-3 in favor of the threaders. Although the court considered several technical legal questions, at heart they agreed that Texas regulators had placed an irrational burden on eyebrow threaders by requiring them to complete an expensive and time-consuming cosmetology education that doesn’t even teach them their regulated skill.

Read the whole thing here.

Jodie Laubenberg: One Cheap Date

"A false witness will not go unpunished,
And he who speaks lies will not escape."
Proverbs 19:5

Empower Texans had a piece yesterday discussing Jodie Laubenberg:

When neighboring State Rep. Scott Turner (R-Rockwall) announced his bid for Speaker, a number of conservatives stepped up to support him. Conservatives knew that Turner would work with Gov. Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and the conservative caucus in the Texas Senate to pass a bold conservative agenda, while Straus would obstruct the passage of reforms favored by the electoral majority.

Unfortunately Laubenberg could not be counted among Turner’s backers. Instead of standing with her conservative friends and supporters, Laubenberg capitulated, endorsing Straus to hold the gavel during the 84th session.

Speculation mounted that Laubenberg had sold her support for a seat at the table—believing she would receive a chairmanship of either the Public Health or Human Services committees, where she could advance pro-life legislation. But Laubenberg’s Faustian bargain never came to fruition.

Laubenberg did not receive the chairmanship she allegedly bartered for. In fact, Laubenberg was never even granted a seat on any of the health-related committees. Instead, she was given the chairmanship of the Elections committee.

But even that chairmanship represented only an illusion of power. All major campaign finance and election reforms were routed by Straus away from Laubenberg’s committee to his close allies on the State Affairs and General Investigating and Ethics committees. Laubenberg was left with busy work, and managed to even pass little of that.

We concur with Empower's take, but have one thing to add.  Laubenberg didn't even get to carry meaningful pro life legislation.  Instead, she got to sponsor HB 3446 which was slow walked to death by Byron Cook and Todd Hunter.

Bottom Line: The politics of the pro-life issue have become so one-sided in this state that something was going to pass this session; that leadership didn't include Jodie Laubenberg in this process reveals the contempt in which they hold her.