ShareRecent editorials from Texas newspapers
The Associated PressAustin American-Statesman. Jan. 19, 2012.
Shift redistricting to bipartisan panel
Redistricting is too important to leave to the politicians, to rephrase Georges Clemenceau's well-worn adage about war and generals, and for that reason we have long supported taking redistricting out of the Legislature's hands and putting it in the hands of an independent, bipartisan commission.
Texas legislators of both parties have a history of overreaching on redistricting and creating a costly court mess for taxpayers. An independent commission wouldn't result in perfect districts, but we think it would draw districts that are more competitive and better able to withstand legal scrutiny.
State Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a Republican whose San Antonio-based district includes part of South Austin, biennially rides the redistricting commission hobbyhorse during legislative sessions. Three times _ in 2005, 2007 and 2011 _ the Texas Senate passed his proposal to create an eight-member independent, bipartisan commission to draw new congressional districts.
Wentworth's plan lets Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature choose the commission's members but excludes elected and party officials and lobbyists from serving on the commission.
Next session will be the time for the House to embrace the idea of an independent commission and join the Senate in passing a bill forming one.
Redistricting occurs every 10 years after the U.S. Census. In Texas, legislators draw new congressional, legislative and State Board of Education boundaries to reflect changes in the state's population. The party in power creates districts that favor incumbents. In fact, protecting incumbents is such an overriding redistricting concern that it has led to an old joke: You used to choose your representative, now your representative chooses you.
The process produces few competitive districts. It's also divisive and ends up costing Texas taxpayers millions of dollars when the Legislature's maps end up in court.
Texas' population increased by 4.3 million people from 2000 to 2010, and Hispanics and other minorities accounted for most of the increase. While the state gained four new congressional seats after the 2010 census (from 32 to 36), the Legislature did not increase the number of districts in which minority voters could potentially choose a minority representative.
Predictably, the Legislature's maps ended up in court. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C., began hearing testimony in a trial to determine whether the Legislature's maps violate the Voting Rights Act (because it has a history of discrimination, Texas must win federal approval before its new maps can take effect). If the court says yes, then interim maps drawn by another three-judge panel in San Antonio will take effect.
But the fate of the interim maps is in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. All this court action has forced the state to push its primary from March 6 to April 3, and it's possible the primary will be pushed back even later.
Ideally, a congressional or legislative district should follow natural boundaries _ city limits, county lines, neighborhoods, major roads or the courses of rivers _ and be drawn as compactly as possible. Odd appendages on otherwise rationally shaped districts occasionally would exist if drawn by an independent commission, but gone would be the ridiculously gerrymandered districts that resemble barbells or a Jackson Pollock paint splatter.
Putting redistricting in the hands of an independent commission will not push the courts entirely out of the picture. Thirteen states use some version of a redistricting commission and the results have been mixed. For example, Republicans and Latino voters challenged the maps drawn by a 14-member citizens' commission in California because they thought they created too many districts favoring Democrats and too few placing Latinos in the majority.
Similarly, Republicans in Arizona complained about the maps drawn by that state's five-person commission. Gov. Jan Brewer tried to remove the commission's chairwoman but the Arizona Supreme Court overruled Brewer and reinstated the chairwoman.
Despite the disputes, the commissions in California and Arizona have been credited with creating more competitive districts. Incumbency, especially by California's commission, was ignored.
Whatever its faults, an independent, bipartisan commission would be superior to letting legislators draw the state's districts. They've messed up their chance far too many times. It's time we put the process in someone else's hands and try a method that lets us elect our representatives again.
___
The Dallas Morning News. Jan. 20, 2012.
Perry exposed by harsh light of national campaign
As the clock ticked toward closing time to enter the 2012 presidential race, Rick Perry had to appear attractive to Republicans unwilling to commit to Mitt Romney and underwhelmed by everyone else.
Then there was the harsh light of day. Perry might have looked good in theory, but bringing him home for Sunday dinner was something else entirely.
Perry has time ahead to post-mortem his first failure as a candidate. His policies and power-driven politics as Texas governor have left much to be desired. Ending his presidential campaign Thursday, two days before a crucial vote in South Carolina, certainly was the prudent move.
It couldn't have been easy for a man cocksure he had the answers for what ails America. A dismal finish in Iowa and brutal polling in South Carolina, where he launched in August to great anticipation, left him little choice.
In the end, he did what was best for his party and probably himself by stepping aside and freeing his supporters. It remains to be seen whether his endorsement of Newt Gingrich over Romney or Rick Santorum will prove pivotal.
Perry's unbeaten streak began in a 1984 Texas House race and extended to terms as agriculture commissioner, lieutenant governor and governor. What did the rest of America see that we Texans didn't?
Perry won, by and large, in binary contests. He may not have been a beloved favorite son, but he usually only had to draw more votes than one someone else of significance, like the two guys being chased by the bear.
A crowded presidential primary was the antithesis _ not Perry vs. Romney but Perry vs. Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and many others, along with super-PACs and interest groups.
And those debates. What this national stage and its hyper-intense coverage exposed was how unprepared Perry was to carry the details of his conservative message. He could minimize debating in Texas, but this GOP campaign has been driven to an unusual degree by how well the candidates could thrust and parry face to face.
Perry's oops moment in Rochester, Mich., was a telling gaffe but not his first. It was just the one that scared off the remaining voters _ and donors _ who might have been willing to listen. In truth, his campaign already was drifting toward the rocks, with previous stumbles and flubs making his once-lofty polling a distant memory.
Perry, the candidate, bears that responsibility, but while he ponders what went wrong, he should ask himself if he surrounded himself with the right people. Clearly, he didn't.
He has three years left on his current term and has left open the possibility of running again. Texas has far too many significant issues to resolve under a vindictive Gov. Rick Perry. What Texas needs now is his best leadership, a pragmatism and wisdom born of lessons learned in defeat.
___
Houston Chronicle. Jan. 20, 2012.
Here's a honey-do list for Gov. Perry
Gov. Rick Perry is returning to Texas looking worse for the wear following his brief, unsuccessful foray into national politics.
Before bowing out on Thursday, Perry gave his endorsement, for what that is worth, to a "less than perfect" Newt Gingrich, a GOP hopeful with his own set of troubles.
Welcome home, Governor, but don't spend too long with your boots up. There's work to do. The 2013 legislative session will be upon us in less than 12 months, and there are problems aplenty facing Texas. It's not too soon for a full-time governor to put his shoulder to the wheel on behalf of the interests of all Texans, not just those who pay to play in our governor's well-documented political games.
Perry's rebuke by voters in Iowa and New Hampshire makes clear that this governor's politics, which come with the whiff of undue influence by those with big money, are not shared by Republicans nationally.
Indeed, it's a fair question to ask whether Perry's views are even in the mainstream among Texas Republicans. We're increasingly inclined to believe that they are not.
We'd like to see the governor prove us wrong in the 2013 session. It would be a welcome change from the Rick Perry who spent the 2009 session with one eye on winning Republican primary voters over in his battle with a well-credentialed challenger for governor (retiring U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison) and the 2011 session with an eye fixed on winning the White House for himself in 2012.
What about Texans, Governor? They deserve better in 2012, 2013 and beyond. They deserve a governor free of distractions; one who is keeping both eyes on the future of Texas.
Here's a honey-do list, a set of important chores that need this governor's attention well ahead of the opening of the 2013 legislative session a year from now:
_ Public education. Local school districts are in a shambles after the Republican state leadership's decision to withhold money from the well-stocked Rainy Day Fund. And dollars that do flow from the state to local schools travel via a system that is utterly byzantine. Both the funding levels and the system need tweaking.
_ Health care for children. This is a simple one: The long-term future of Texas is best served by a system that ensures all of our children receive acceptable health care from prenatal care for their mothers to vaccinations and ready access to medical treatment in cases of illness and injury. A competitive, First World Texas cannot be built from a system that provides Third World care for too many of its children.
_ The environment. Perhaps now that he's no longer running for president, the governor can stop casting Texas' state government as the enemy of the federal government. That problem is most apparent in the Perry-appointed Texas Commission for Environmental Quality, the agency that's supposed to protect Texas' air, land and water. But the agency treats polluters, rather than citizens, as its chief clients; levies puny fines against serious, long-term polluters; and balks at enforcing federal pollution standards. Entities such as Harris County are left to handle overdue air-quality enforcement that by all rights ought to belong to the state.
_ Tax reform. The state taxation system put in place in 2006 is not working, and that is contributing to problems in other areas. The system needs an overhaul sooner rather than later. In the current political climate, it isn't likely that any overhaul would include a move to a state income tax. But this Typhoid Mary subject deserves more than routine dismissal in Austin as the dysfunction of the existing system, especially the so-called business tax, becomes plain.
There's more, of course, but this will suffice for the nonce.
___
Amarillo Globe-News. Jan. 17, 2012.
Tax exemption extends hand to vets' families
A number of laws took effect when the new year commenced, but one of them deserves special attention.
It's a law that extends property tax exemptions to the surviving spouses of disabled veterans. It's the state's way of offering thanks to the sacrifices that veterans' loved ones make _ right along with the veterans _ in defense of the country.
Senate Bill 516, approved by the 2011 Legislature, allows a total homestead exemption to a surviving spouse who does not remarry after a disabled vet dies and the property remains the homestead of the surviving spouse.
Veterans began receiving the homestead exemption benefit in 2009. The exemption affected about 35,300 Texas veterans.
In its quest to help veterans' loved ones, the Legislature wisely sent a constitutional amendment proposal to voters in November. And Texans responded overwhelmingly this past November by approving the amendment. "This new provision will help families who have been a part of the tremendous sacrifice that veterans have given our country," said Comptroller of Public Accounts Susan Combs in a statement issued just before the law took effect.
Service to one's country isn't just limited to the individual who dons the uniform. It also involves the families of veterans, many of whom have put themselves in harm's way. But it doesn't _ and surely shouldn't _ stop there. It also affects veterans at all levels of military service who, for whatever reason, have become disabled. Whether they retired from the military, served an enlistment and got out, or were reservists or served in the National Guard, they all have done their duty to their country, as have their spouses.
The Texas veterans homestead exemption gives back a small measure of the sacrifice that spouses have made, along with the deceased disabled veteran in defense of this great nation.
___
Waco Tribune-Herald. Jan. 18, 2012.
Dublin Dr Pepper myths
However you might feel about cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup in your soft drinks, the end of Dublin Dr Pepper last week yields two important truths. First, the free-market system isn't always so pretty or so neat. Secondly, details have an inconvenient way of scattering to the four winds the tenuous mystique surrounding any beloved product.
For instance, popular Dublin Dr Pepper was not generally produced in the engaging little Erath County town of 3,700 but down in Temple. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's important to realize it was a Temple bottler that for years made this drink, complete with the seemingly requisite cane sugar, even though it was packaged and sold to folks as Dublin Dr Pepper.
Second, Jack McKinney, executive director of the Dr Pepper Museum here in Waco, tells the Tribune-Herald editorial board that Southwest Canners in Nacogdoches also bottles Dr Pepper with cane sugar in 20-ounce plastic bottles, 2-liter bottles and eight-can packs. And you can get Dr Pepper made with cane sugar at grocery outlets such as H-E-B and the Dr Pepper Museum.
Finally, it's speculation, but we're betting you'll see more bottlers forsaking corn syrup for sugar as ethanol continues to pump corn prices higher, finally making them competitive with sugar prices, which is why bottlers years ago began using corn syrup _ another nifty lesson in free-market dynamics.
All that said, there's a good argument to be made that Dr Pepper Snapple, which owns Dr Pepper, might have been misguided in efforts to legally halt Dublin Dr Pepper operations. When your group sales were $5.6 billion in 2010 and Dublin Dr Pepper is making about $7 million a year, the old David vs. Goliath analogy does anything but spur sales.
On the other hand, it's just as likely Dr Pepper Snapple was taking some heat from bottlers around the state who took notice of individuals who bought loads of delicious Dublin Dr Pepper, then hauled them off elsewhere to sell, cutting into profit margins of the others. And, after all, Dublin Dr Pepper was originally to be confined to a six-county area.
Finally, as is usual in such legal settlements, you can be fairly sure that the owners of Dublin Dr Pepper did not walk away from this empty-handed. There may be wailing and gnashing of teeth over in Dublin, but bad feelings will pass. When we talked with visitors from Shreveport, La., and Gainesville, Fla., at the Dr Pepper Museum on Tuesday, none had even heard of the infamous Dublin Dr Pepper flap.
"I love Dr Pepper," said Crystal Tatum, of Shreveport, a former Texan who was at the museum with 18-year-old daughter Jackie Brown, a student at Baylor University. "But I really miss Big Red."
Our take: It's time for everyone to get past all this. We can't put it better than McKinney did: "It's like we have two good friends _ Dublin, whom we've worked with on exhibits and collectibles, and Dr Pepper Snapple, and now they're getting a divorce. And it's all about business. So are we going to say bad things about the bride or the groom? Well, the answer is neither. If they ever get back together, they'd both hate you!"