Railroad Commission Prepares to Leap into 21st Century

It has long been recognized that the oldest regulatory agency in Texas has been in need of more than just a name change. The Texas Railroad Commission has nothing whatsoever to do with railroads, and the way it conducts business is a reflection of its mainframe computer system -- right out of the 1960s. It is at its core an energy agency. If you want to drill for oil and gas in the Lone Star State, you have to go to the TRRC for a permit.

The Texas Tribune's Kate Galbraith reports that change is finally coming to the agency that was established by the legislature in 1891:

The Railroad Commission of Texas regulates one of the most advanced industries in the world — oil and gas drilling. Yet the commission’s software systems, many of its rules and even its name are from another era.

As the 122-year-old agency confronts a drilling boom that is altering the state and national economies, an overhaul of its operations is under way. Its old mainframe computer system will be upgraded with modern digital storage, clearing the way for a more user-friendly website. Decades-old regulations are getting updated to reflect the rapid spread of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. And the Legislature may change the commission’s name to accurately reflect what it does. (The commission’s railroad duties ended in 2005.)

The push does not go far enough for critics, who charge that the commission is too cozy with the industry it regulates and fails to adequately address environmental problems. Nonetheless, observers say there is a burst of energy, unseen in years, at the sometimes-languid commission.

The changes are “very important. They’re long overdue,” said John Hays, a partner at the Austin law firm Hays & Owens, whose clients include oil and gas companies.

The activity stems partly from new leadership. The Railroad Commission is headed by three elected commissioners, and each of the the current trio has arrived in the past three years.

The drilling boom, along with increased scrutiny from the public, the Legislature and federal regulators, has also forced the commissioners’ hand. Oil production in Texas rose by 18 percent between 2010 and 2011. That has strained the permitting and inspection capabilities of the commission, whose budget — $71.1 million this fiscal year, down from $74.7 million last year — has not kept up.

[Read More]

- JP

State Rep. Steve Toth files Firearms Protection Act

From PatDollard.com, we learn that State Rep. Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands) intends to file legislation designed to protect the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for Texans:

The “Firearms Protection Act” bill would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries. Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.

“We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in. The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our State are too important to just let the Federal Government take them away. The overreach of the federal administrations executive orders that are do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas,” said Toth.

Along with Wyoming, Texas will lead the country in continuing to stand for the sovereignty to run Texas as Texans see fit while exercising the Bill of Rights Amendments 2& 10 to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers … [to] extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.”

[Read More]

Rep. Toth recently discussed his prospective bill with Lubbock talk radio host Chad Hasty on KFYO. You can listen to the audio at the link.

h/t: Michelle McCormick

- JP

Texas Law Pays for Secret Abortions on Teenage Girls

Sarah Crawford of Texas Right to Life shines a light on a loophole in the Lone Star State's Parental Consent Law large enough to push an abortion clinic through:

Current Texas law calls for Texas taxpayers to fund secret abortions for pregnant minors. A loophole in the state’s parental consent laws allows judges to authorize pregnant minors to undergo an abortion without parental involvement or permission. This loophole fosters abuse of the legal process established to protect minors and strengthen Texas families.

Texas law requires abortion providers to obtain formal consent from and send notice to at least one parent of a minor girl before providing an abortion to her. If a girl does not want to involve her parents in the abortion, or even reveal the pregnancy to them, most abortion clinics will furnish the minor a list of attorneys who volunteer to help the vulnerable teen navigate the court system. These attorneys are skilled at judge-shopping and serve as artful emissaries for the abortion industry.

Section 33.003 of the Texas Family Code states:

A pregnant minor who wishes to have an abortion without notification to one of her parents…may file an application for a court order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance of an abortion without notification to either of her parents.

While the exception was intended to protect minors from abuse, particularly when the parent or guardian may be the perpetrator, the judicial bypass provision of the Parental Consent Law is exploited by the abortion industry to rush vulnerable young girls through the abortion process.

The identity and anonymity of the minor is always protected, but the taxpayers are not. This entire court proceeding and any subsequent appeals are funded by taxpayers in Texas. The judicial bypass proceeding is the only court proceeding for which no data is recorded or kept. So while Texas taxpayers pay for ‘volunteer’ attorney ad litems for the girls as well as the court fees, we are kept in the dark about frequency of petitions, outcomes, costs, and appeals.

[Read More]

- JP

Moeller: Texas Is The Thorn In Progressive Liberalism’s Side

The AEI's R.J. Moeller, who is also a media consultant to Dennis Prager and Ricochet.com, writes that Texas "stands as a brazen affront" to what those on The Left tell us should be working:

In the on-going debate between proponents of Big v. Limited government, it can often be too easy to dismiss the other side on partisan, emotional grounds. The Left accuses the Right of possessing callous hearts toward the poor, indifference toward the “infrastructure” of our nation, and a blind allegiance to nefarious, shadowy 1%-ers who pull the strings of Big (insert any word but “Government” here). The Right views the Left as being naive about mankind’s fallen state, indulgent with other peoples’ money, and un-serious about the, shall we say, “troubling” fiscal position our nation (and many of our states) finds itself in.

Mixed up and lost in all the hyperbole and high emotions are actual facts, figures, and dollar amounts. Regardless of someone’s religiosity, most Americans want to be good stewards of the unprecedented wealth we’ve been blessed with. In fact, many who embrace the most fiscally-detrimental tax-and-spend policies are the most certain they are living out our Lord’s call to look after “the least of these.”

[...]

Surely tax-and-spend progressives in Austin,TX who have a front-row seat to what is transpiring in The Lone Star State – a state that has put into place policies that stand in direct contradiction to those enacted in states like California and Illinois – will at the very least see that they are going to have more money to spend on “social justice” pet projects due to the pro-growth initiatives they have enacted in recent years?

[...]

Texas is mocked and ridiculed in the press and entertainment world because it stands as a brazen affront to all of the things the experts in the faculty lounge at Harvard (and writers’ room at The Daily Show) tell us ought to be working.

[Read More]

- JP

Secession was not the ultimate issue in Texas v. White

Cory Genelin explains how the decision is not about what it is often perceived to be:

Texas v. White is often cited as a case which definitively and directly ruled on Texas' right to secede. That is not the case. Texas v. White was a case about government bonds. It's all a little boring but it's important to understand just how far removed the decision is from what it is often presented to be.

In 1851, the Federal Government issued bonds to the State of Texas as payment for the resolution of a boundary dispute. The bonds were payable to the State of Texas, or bearer, meaning that Texas could redeem them itself, or sell them on the secondary market. The Texas legislature then passed an act which indicated that the bonds could not be sold unless endorsed by the Governor of Texas. Texas redeemed most of the bonds prior to the Civil War, but it still had a few left when the war broke out. These were not yet signed by the governor.

When Texas putatively seceded, its governor, G. W. Paschal, remained loyal to the Union and was replaced by a governor loyal to the Confederacy.

Texas traded some of the remaining bonds to Mr. White and others in exchange for supplies. These bonds were not signed by G.W. Paschal. Paschal warned the Union that Texas would try to use the bonds in support of the war effort. The bonds would be easily identified because they would not be signed by Paschal or any prior Governor of Texas, if they were signed at all. The U.S. Treasury made it well known that it would not redeem such bonds and so no attempt was made to redeem them.

By 1865, Texas and the Confederacy were defeated. The U.S. President appointed a new governor of Texas and directed the formation of a reconstruction government. In 1866 the State Convention passed an ordinance directing the governor to repossess the bonds. The State of Texas (now loyal to the Union) brought suit against Mr. White and the other bond holders, arguing that the bonds were never properly endorsed and so still belonged to Texas.

The bondholders argued, among other things, that Texas had no right to sue in the Supreme Court because: "Texas by her rebellious courses had so far changed her status, as one of the United States, as to be disqualified from suing in this court."

This was not a contest of the merits of secession. This was not a case of a pro-secession state arguing in favor of secession. The reconstruction government of Texas was arguing in favor of Texas' standing in federal court and therefore Texas was arguing against the secession argument raised by the bondholders.

[Read More]

- JP

Austin: 'The Boys Are Back In Town'

The song of the day in Austin is "The Boys Are Back In Town." Here's an excerpt from the Texas Tribune's report:

The last time Texas lawmakers convened in Austin, they were absorbed with numbers and boundaries: how to make ends meet with a deflated state budget and draw new district maps the courts would approve.

But with improving fiscal conditions and redistricting mostly in the rearview mirror, they are approaching the 2013 legislative session with some pressing policy questions, from whether to introduce private school vouchers into the state’s public education system to whether they should put in effect — and accept financing for — major provisions of the federal health care overhaul.

Meanwhile, lawmakers will face the consequences of the sweeping cuts and budget-balancing tricks of the 2011 session, including a multibillion-dollar Medicaid shortfall and a lawsuit — expected to be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court early this year and decided in the summer — over how the state finances public education.

The Legislature is also staring down the barrel of some other major investments, from ensuring that Texas has the water to meet its soaring population growth to finding consistent revenue streams for long-delayed transportation projects.

Do not expect a full respite from hot-button issues; lawmakers have already offered legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks, and to allow teachers to carry concealed handguns in school classrooms. But the Legislature’s Republican majority may take a softer tack toward immigration bills this session, after a national election in which the growing Hispanic population moved even further into the Democratic camp.

[Read More]

- JP

It's official: Ted Cruz is a U.S. Senator

Freshman Ted Cruz now officially represents 26 million Texans. He was sworn in just after Noon today. The Dallas Morning News has the story:

Vice President Joe Biden administered the oath and was the first to shake his hand, followed by Texas’ senior senator, John Cornyn. Cruz held a dark tan Bible in his left hand as he held up his right hand and swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. He waived to his wife, Heidi, and their young daughters, Caroline and Catherine, hard to miss in striking red dresses in a gallery overlooking the Senate chamber.

[...]

Cruz will serve on five committees, including his top choice, Judiciary. Cornyn remains a member; it is unusual for a state to have two senators from the same party on that prime committee. Cruz also got Armed Services and Commerce, along with Aging and Rules. (Cornyn will be on Finance and Judiciary.) The Senate GOP announced the full assignments as the ceremony was underway.

As senators and senators-elect gathered on the floor beforehand, Cruz chatted with Jim DeMint, the South Carolina tea partier who recently resigned to take over the conservative Heritage Foundation. DeMint played a key role in recruiting Cruz and advancing his long-shot candidacy.

[Read More]

Photo courtesy U.S Rep. Aaron Pena

- JP

Ted Cruz takes the oath of office today

Conservative Cuban-American Ted Cruz will officially become a U.S. Senator today. According to an Associated Press report:

He could be poised to become a rising star among Capitol Hill conservatives, especially given the retirement of tea party leader U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

Demint and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin were two of the former Texas Solicitor General's earliest and strongest supporters in his campaign for the Senate. With strong Tea Party support, Cruz upset Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in a July runoff election for the GOP senatorial nomination, then went on to a landslide victory over Democrat Paul Sadler in the 2012 general election.

- JP

Texas Social Media Boot Camp

h/t; Bryan Preston

- JP

Tea party backed Ted Cruz forces U.S. Senate runoff

The Tea Party Movement proved that it is alive and well in the Lone Star State Tuesday as Ted Cruz forced establishment favorite Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst into a runoff in the Texas U.S. Senate race:

Cruz, a Cuban-American lawyer who served as state solicitor general, along with seven additional Republicans competing in the Senate primary, held Dewhurst to 447 percent of the vote with 100 percent of precincts reporting. That meant Dewhurst was 7 points shy of the majority required to avoid a July 31 runoff. Cruz placed second with 34 percent to secure his runoff spot.

The showing by Cruz, who was endorsed by the Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks, Sarah Palin and others connected to the tea party, marks the latest in a string of U.S. Senate victories for the movement. First, tea party challenger Dan Liljenquist forced Sen. Orrin Hatch to a primary in Utah, then Richard Mourdock defeated Sen. Dick Lugar in Indiana, and most recently, state Sen. Deb Fischer won her party's nomination in Nebraska.

Cruz and his supporters argued Dewhurst was too moderate and had lied in recent days by claiming Cruz backs amnesty for illegal immigrants.

"Dewhurst failed to get a majority because he failed to fight for conservative principles. His false attacks backfired," Sen. Jim DeMint, a Cruz supporter, tweeted Tuesday night.

Cruz' backers hope to build on new momentum ahead of the runoff, believing Dewhurst's establishment-backed candidacy has topped out with regard to support.

[Read More]

Dallas Morning News senior political writer Wayne Slater predicts the Cruz-Dewhurst runoff will be a fierce fight over few voters.

- JP