Fourth verse … same as the first?

The Cuatro

Mere hours after both chambers adjourned sine die for the third special session on Tuesday, Governor Abbott issued a proclamation calling them back for a 4th Called Session. Topics for this fourth bite at the apple are:

• education savings accounts
• school funding
• school safety
• an increased law enforcement presence for Colony Ridge (in Liberty County)
• border security, including funding for a wall and creation of a new second-degree felony for illegal entry into the state from a foreign nation

After a two-day pause to get organized, the House and Senate got to work on several of those tasks this week—the latter despite the initial absence of its presiding officer, who was recovering from a bout of viral pneumonia.

Border wars

That last special session topic mentioned above (“border security”) is the one most applicable to your jobs. On that front, the latest attempt at creating an “illegal entry” offense is House Bill 4 by Rep. Spiller (R-Jacksboro) (and an identical Senate companion, SB 4 by Sen. Perry (R-Lubbock)). Drafted to apply to offenders entering Texas at a point other than a lawful port of entry, this latest version includes a new provision that would allow a magistrate or judge to dismiss an illegal entry charge at any point in the criminal justice process and order an arrestee to be returned across the border (with that arrested person’s consent). Not only does this proposal likely violate a prosecutor’s constitutional discretion to prosecute such a criminal case, but it also appears to flatly violate Article 1, Section 20 of the Texas Constitution (“no person shall be transported out of the State for any offense committed within the same”). That and other provisions of the bill almost certainly violate well-established federal pre-emption boundaries under the federal constitution as well. But hey, what’s a little constitutional violation between friends, amirite?

As for the process during this fourth special session, the express lane is fully operational—but that means different things in different chambers. The House referred HB 4 to the House State Affairs Committee on Tuesday, heard the bill Thursday at 10:00 a.m., took five hours of testimony, and then approved it along a partly-line 8–4 vote. That bill now goes to the Calendars Committee, which can schedule the bill for a floor debate in a few days. That is fast action for the lower chamber, but then the Senate said, “Hold my beer, watch this!”

The Senate posted notice of a committee hearing on its illegal entry legislation (SB 4) on Thursday at 3:11 p.m., laid the bill out in committee at 3:15 p.m., voted it out of committee at 3:40 p.m. on an almost party-line vote (more on that below), placed it on the Intent Calendar at 4:10 p.m., considered it on the Senate floor at 7:00 p.m., approved it on second reading by an almost party-line vote at 9:30 p.m., adjourned, started a new legislative day (still on Thursday), and finally approved SB 4 on third reading by another almost party-line vote at 10:15 p.m. Senate Bill 4 will now go to the House to try to “catch up” to its House companion before it hits the floor in the lower chamber.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the House and Senate, for those of you not familiar with how this works. And the best part is, you’ll never guess which one considers itself the more “deliberative body”! But in fairness, there was at least one person upholding that reputation on the Senate floor. State Sen. Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury), who was the previous Senate author of multiple illegal entry bills, voted against the latest draft on the basis of its unconstitutionality, a stance that resulted in the bill being taken from him and given to State Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), who—along with the rest of his caucus—did not share those reservations. As we have increasingly noted, legal niceties like that will be left to the lawyers to hash out. (Good luck with that.)

Election results

Of the 14 constitutional amendments put to voters this week, all but one passed. The lone measure to fail was Proposition 13 to extend the mandatory judicial retirement age from 75 to 79 years of age.

SCOTX Chief Justice Nathan Hecht, who turns 75 next year, could not be reached for comment in any of the news coverage we saw.

More legislative retirements

In addition to the list of retiring House members we shared with you in our last update, State Sen. Drew Springer (R-Muenster) and State Rep. Geanie Morrison (R-Victoria) both announced their intention to not seek re-election this week.

Scattershooting

Here are some recent stories you might’ve missed:

• “DA Joe Gonzales creates team to review cases involving violent offenders” (San Antonio Express-News [free link])
• “Texas voters reject proposal to increase judges’ retirement ages” (Texas Tribune [free])
• “Supreme Court wary of striking down 1994 law protecting domestic violence victims in high-stakes gun case” (CBS News [free])

Quotes of the Week

“[Lt. Gov. Patrick reassigned the illegal entry bill from me] out of respect for the majority view within the Senate Republican Caucus that wanted to pass a bill and recognizing that my view of my oath and constitutional construct of the relationship between the federal government’s specified duties and the state’s authority was in the minority view. … Members, let us consider carefully our actions. … We are setting a terrible precedent for the future by invalidating our obedience and faithfulness to our Constitution. President Biden’s failure to obey his oath does not compel us to violate ours.”
            —State Sen. Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury), a retired U.S. Army officer, in a speech from the Senate floor explaining his vote against SB 4 (creating a state crime of illegal entry). [The link is the actual floor video of the relevant portion of his remarks.]

“Someone who’s, you know, shooting at people. That’s a good start.”
            —SCOTX Chief Justice John Roberts, after the defense attorney in U.S. v. Rahimi replied during oral arguments that the answer to the Chief’s question about whether his client was a dangerous person would depend on the definition of dangerous conduct.

“This is really a war within the Republican Party. And that makes it very hard to get anything done.”
            —Sherri Greenberg, assistant dean at UT’s LBJ School of Public Affairs (and former Democratic state legislator), describing the “toxic” relationship that currently exists between Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dade Phelan, as quoted in a Dallas Morning News ($) article on the lean results from the third special session.

###