Austin American-Statesman. May 7, 2023.

Editorial: Texas lawmakers shouldn’t target local prosecutors

Texas lawmakers are under pressure from Republican leaders to make it easier to remove local prosecutors based on politically motivated complaints. Legislators should resist this blatantly political maneuver—the latest in GOP efforts to usurp local control—and preserve the longstanding American tradition of prosecutorial independence.

At least eight bills pending at the Texas Capitol would provide for the eventual removal of prosecutors who refuse to prosecute certain crimes. The bills would undermine prosecutorial discretion — an important tool that allows local district attorneys to decide which criminal cases to pursue based on the resources of their offices and the priorities of their communities. Prosecutors shouldn’t have to worry about political interference when making decisions about how to do their jobs.

Push to remove prosecutors rooted in politics

Proponents of the bills argue that they’re needed to punish prosecutors who do not uphold state criminal statutes, but local prosecutors have always had the power to use discretion in deciding which cases to pursue. That tradition shouldn’t be cast aside at the whim of Republican lawmakers more interested in scoring political points with their right-wing base than making meaningful improvements to our legal system. This is clearly just another legislative attempt by Republicans to impose conservative control in liberal-leaning large cities like Austin.

Two of the GOP bills aimed at curbing prosecutorial discretion — HB 17 and SB 20 — have already passed their respective chambers, thankfully with amendments that limited their scope. Under HB 17, considered by some Capitol observers to have the best chance to become law, an elected prosecutor could face a removal trial for official misconduct if a resident in their county files a complaint. This process, subject to likely legal challenges, isn’t even necessary. Texas already has a well-established process for removing prosecutors for misconduct.

Legislative scrutiny of local prosecutors has intensified since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the Texas Legislature’s banning of almost all abortions in the state. Some prosecutors across the country, including Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza, have pledged not to prosecute abortion cases, angering conservatives and conservative lawmakers. In Austin, police misconduct issues also factor into this debate. Austin Police Association leaders outraged by Garza’s prosecution of 19 officers for using excessive force against protesters during the George Floyd protests in 2020 have testified in support of these bills.

Garza is among those prosecutors most likely to fall into the crosshairs of conservatives if any of the bills become law. Some Republicans have called Garza a “rogue” prosecutor for refusing to prosecute abortion cases. And while Abbott didn’t mention Garza by name, he vowed last month to rein in “rogue district attorneys” when he sought to reverse the murder conviction Garza secured against Daniel Perry in the killing of a Black Lives Matter protester in 2019.

Prosecutors should answer to local voters, not partisan politicians

There is nothing rogue about a local district attorney who runs his office according to the wishes of voters in the community he serves. Garza campaigned on a progressive platform that championed a less punitive and more rehabilitative approach to prosecuting non-violent, low-level crimes, as well as a crackdown on violent gun crime. This thoughtful criminal justice strategy is winning favor in cities across the country as a way to divert low-level criminal offenders from jail while offering them community-based services that help them become productive citizens. Garza was elected in 2020 with 69% of the vote, a clear mandate to run the office as he promised during his campaign. If he decides to run for reelection in 2024, it should be up to Travis County voters, not his political enemies, to decide if he should remain in the job.

Passing state laws that can be weaponized by prosecutors’ political opponents is antithetical to standards of justice in our country. Prosecutors should operate independently and without fear of retaliation from agenda-pushing politicians. Discretion is an inherent component of the criminal justice system. Anyone who has received a warning instead of a citation or arrest by a police officer for a legal infraction has been the beneficiary of such discretion.

Texas law provides for the election of local prosecutors by local voters. If voters want to remove their county or district attorney from office, they get a chance every four years. In between elections, these prosecutors should be entrusted to do their jobs without fear of interference and reprisals from partisan politicians.

Lawmakers should vote against any bill that tampers with prosecutorial discretion and independence.

___

Dallas Morning News. May 7, 2023.

Editorial: Gov. Abbott, you must act on gun violence

Texas is being shaped by fear and anguish.

Gov. Abbott,

Eight more innocent people were killed in Texas yesterday. This time it was a shopping mall. They were simply going about their day, men, women, children.

A man got out of his car and sprayed them with bullets of such a high caliber and in such rapid succession that a mass killing was inescapable.

You responded that this was an “unspeakable tragedy.” We tell you that it was not unspeakable, and that the people of Texas need you to speak to it and its cause.

There is nothing conservative about refusing to acknowledge evidence or give voice to the true nature of a problem. The people who are dead today are not dead because a twisted and evil soul walked among them. They are dead because that person was able to obtain a weapon so powerful and with such high capacity that even the bravest and fastest response of law enforcement could not save their lives.

That is what you must speak to if you want to truly lead this state. You must speak to the terrible imbalance that you and Republican leaders have created between the individual liberty of nearly unrestricted ownership of the most powerful rifles and guns versus the increasing decline in society’s ability to function without constant fear of violent death.

It’s too bad that, when given the chance to do so Sunday morning on Fox News, you instead embraced what has become the dodge of the right - focusing on mental health measures. Those are needed. But in a world where mental health struggles are becoming more common, no nation suffers from mass shootings like the U.S. The lack of common sense controls on gun sales are the reason.

The people you represent are living in fear. Our public spaces are no longer places we can go without considering the possibility that we may become victims of once-unimaginable violence. Our private spaces are at risk, too. Our schools, churches, shopping malls, big-box stores, airports and funerals are all possible targets. So are homes, backyards and front yards, and highways and city streets. Every place, every gathering.

Parents fear letting their children go to school or go to the mall. Children exchange messages about constant rumors of guns someone might be carrying around them. Their lives are being changed by the presence of fear.

Texans have had it with living under the gun. A February poll from the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas Politics Project showed half of Texans want stricter gun laws. That includes 22% of people who strongly identify as Republican. Those numbers are only going to grow as people’s fear about living their daily lives grows.

We recommended your return to office because the people of this state have prospered under the pro-business environment fostered here. People need the opportunity to lift themselves up, and Texas has given them that chance. But what good is prosperity if we cannot have freedom from fear to enjoy it?

When we recommended you, we did so with reservations and urged you to recognize that “the Second Amendment does not amount to an absolute right to individual ownership of firearms.”

Images on social media show the Allen shooter used a high-caliber rifle. Sounds from video of the shooting indicate it fired in rapid succession. While facts still must be confirmed, other images indicate the weapon of choice was a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle with a high capacity magazine.

How many people might be alive today if that shooter had not been able to obtain that rifle, or that magazine, or the caliber of rounds loaded in it? We don’t know whether the shooter obtained the weapon legally or not. It doesn’t matter because there are so many guns all around, and they are so loosely controlled, that anyone with intent and money can get one with no trouble at all.

This has to stop. You cannot say this is an “unspeakable tragedy” and move on. A leader must have the courage to speak. You must look at this horror, at the devastation wrought on these people, and you must summon the will to act to change the laws that have put us in this terrible place.

___

Fort Worth Star-Telegram. May 5, 2023.

Editorial: If kids are getting high from gas-station gummies — and they are — Texas needs to act

When drugs are like candy, it’s a problem.

We’ve seen it with fentanyl, brightly colored pills that can be deadly to an unsuspecting user. When the drug is cannabis, that’s not nearly as dire, of course. But a breakdown in Texas law and regulation has made for confusion on a wide array of products, and among the effects are teenagers easily accessing intoxicating products that should be illegal, or at least harder to get.

A Star-Telegram investigation shows the extent of the problem, finding that at least some readily available cannabis products picked up at convenience stores or CBD shops may essentially be marijuana, which is illegal in Texas. Careless legislating and inadequate state oversight are at least partly to blame.

This is not a debate about recreational use of marijuana and whether we should decriminalize or even legalize the drug. We have advocated consistently for slow, careful decriminalization that avoids the mistakes seen in other states and measures consequences before proceeding to legalization. This is about clarity in the law, consumer protection and fixing botched policymaking before the problem gets any worse.

Cannabis policy is a complicated blend of federal and state laws, thanks to the tension between a tough federal ban and states moving at varying speeds toward legalization. It got trickier in recent years, when Congress and states took steps to legalize hemp — cannabis that lacks marijuana's intoxicating effect, which stems from a chemical called THC.

Texas followed along on hemp in 2019 without much fanfare or thought of regulatory needs. The most immediate effect was confusion for police and district attorneys, who couldn’t make a clear pot bust and prosecution without testing a product’s THC level — testing that Texas labs were nowhere near ready for.

Capitalism, of course, rushed in. In less than four years, stores marketing CBD and related products that can be swallowed, rubbed on or vaped were everywhere. Turns out it’s a short step from oils and other products meant for medicinal use to yummy strawberry gummies delivering a high that, legally, shouldn’t be there.

And it’s an even shorter step from the corner gas station to high schools.

This should be a priority for the attorney general’s consumer protection office. The marketing of these products needs better regulation, and a few fraud prosecutions for manufacturing or selling illegally intoxicating products under the banner of legal cannabis would send a strong message.

Then, the Legislature has to clean up its mess. Definitions of what’s legal, based on the product’s chemical composition, are impenetrable. Even lawyers working in the field disagree on what’s allowed. They even disagree on whether there’s an age limit for purchase of certain products.

If we’re going to set a precise age for tattoos, cigarettes, alcohol and, yes, gender-related medications and procedures, surely we need one for cannabis.

The state must clarify that and give law enforcement more authority and resources to prosecute businesses and shut down repeat offenders who sell illegally. Make sure there’s ample testing capacity so law enforcement can build good cases.

That said, any action must reflect our evolving attitudes on marijuana. It’s important to stop the sale and use of cannabis products in schools. But a dalliance with a vape pen shouldn’t send a teenager careening through the legal system.

Emphasize deterrence and learning about the consequences of drug use; discipline without derailing a child’s education. Districts should reconsider policies that send students to alternative campuses if they test positive for marijuana use.

The extent of Texas’ change of heart on cannabis remains to be seen. Decades ago, few could have imagined a vote in the Legislature to make possession of an ounce of weed or less a Class C misdemeanor — a ticket, essentially, with no possible jail time. The House passed such a bill at the end of April, the third straight session it’s voted for some decriminalization.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick will probably stop the bill in the Senate. But the trend is unmistakable. As long as Texas steps slowly and adjusts, avoiding the unintended consequences seen in places such as Colorado and Oklahoma, it will continue.

In the meantime, though, the laws we have should be enforced. And that means taking seriously the presence of illegal products, especially when children can access them.

___

Houston Chronicle. May 6, 2023.

Editorial: Texas foster care needs money to keep kids safe. Lawmakers have billions.

Why?

That’s the question that advocates for Texas children who are neglected, abandoned, abused and in need of a safe place to live ask almost daily. That’s the question children themselves ask. It’s a question every single Texan should be asking.

Why does one of the wealthiest states in the nation, a state with a huge budget surplus to work with, find it almost impossible to take care of these children?

Why, over the years, has Texas so vigorously resisted a long-running, class-action lawsuit designed to radically reform a foster care system that not only has failed to meet the most basic needs of these children but has actually placed them in harm’s way?

Why, nearly two-and-a-half years after Gov. Greg Abbott ordered two state agencies that are his co-defendants in the class-action case to “fully comply” with a federal judge’s orders, are the agencies still balking, still resisting? Why, by the end of this legislative session, this bountiful session, is the foster care system expected emerge relatively unchanged?

One more question: Why do Texas lawmakers worry more about drag shows, transgender medical care and books about being gay on school library shelves than they do about the needs of abused and neglected children in their own custody — the custody, that is, of the State of Texas?

We’re talking about roughly 20,000 young Texans, from infants to older teenagers, who, through no fault of their own, have been removed from their parents’ homes and are now in the foster care system.

We are well aware that countless state employees with the Department of Family and Protective Services and the Health and Human Services Commission, go to work every morning with the well-being of these children uppermost in their minds. Their job is difficult, often heart-wrenching. Caseloads are intolerably high, and turnover is at crisis stage.

The state employees have their counterparts in the private sector and among volunteers dedicated to caring for children desperately in need of a safe and healthy home.

U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack — who at this point should be eligible for sainthood after 12 long years of poking, prodding and trying to pull the state into compliance with best practices and at the very least, constitutionality — is equally dedicated. During a hearing last month in a federal courthouse in Corpus Christi, she noted that Texas has made improvements in recent years but has fallen back into its old bad habits in some areas.

Threats to children’s safety are growing, not receding, she said, noting that too many foster children — including children 3 years of age and younger — are being prescribed four or more mental-health drugs at one time without the necessary evaluations and assessments.

“The State can’t ignore the glaring issues with misuse and abuse of powerful drugs on young children,” said Paul Yetter, the Houston business attorney who has represented the plaintiffs pro bono since the case was filed in 2011, in an email to the editorial board. “Providers are violating state regulations without any consequences or, apparently, oversight. This is a huge health and safety risk in the system.”

The judge also chided the state for not moving fast enough to reduce the number of children living in hotels and churches because they don’t have families or shelters to take them in. And she charged that foster children who have been victims of sexual abuse are being placed in bedrooms alongside youth with histories of sexual aggression.

Now 76 and on senior status, Jack has presided since 2011 over the suit filed by two New York-based nonprofit groups asserting that Texas operates an unsafe, long-term foster care system. These days, plaintiffs are concerned that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is trying to pressure the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rein in Jack, if not replace her.

So what’s the problem? Why do we tolerate a system that’s “chronically broken,” to quote Austin foster parent Kristin Finan. She and her husband Patrick Badgley are parents of six children, four of them foster children. She also co-founded Carrying Hope, a non-profit that serves foster children in Austin and more recently in Houston — Houston, she says, “because the need is so great.”

State Rep. Gene Wu, a Houston Democrat who serves on the House Committee on Juvenile Justice and Family Issues, has at least a partial answer to the question of why. “Everyone says ... I’m very concerned about kids in foster care and all the bad things that happen, but don’t ask me what to do about it,” Wu told the Texas Tribune recently. “And don’t ask me to take away my funding priorities to pay for that. They won’t ever say that publicly. But that’s what is going through members’ minds.”

In the waning days of this legislative session, the proposed budget would give DFPS $300 million out of the budget surplus, money that would be used to increase pay for some foster care providers. Under the current system, relatives who take in children get paid much less than other foster parents. Legislation sponsored by state Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, and Rep. Lacy Hull, R-Houston, would equalize the payments. A bill sponsored by Rep. Armando Walle, D-Houston, would lower the caseloads for DFPS staff, some of whom have been carrying more than double, some more than triple, the standard caseload of 20.

At this point, those bills are either dead or dying, even though as attorney Yetter notes, “There are critical reforms waiting to be done, and all we hear from the state is ‘We don’t have the money.’ We’d prefer for the state to work cooperatively with us. But innocent children are still at risk.”

This year, of course, we have had the money. With an unprecedented surplus of nearly $33 billion, the Legislature could fund foster care like never before. DFPS still needs more money for family or friends who take in foster children, for staff raises and for foster children aging out of the system (far too many who, in Wu’s words, “end up in prison, sex-trafficking or dead.”) Additional funding wouldn’t fix every problem, but it could go a long way toward addressing the complications that perpetually make it difficult to take care of our most vulnerable children. Of course, to get that done, we would have to distract lawmakers from guys in dresses and alleged smut in the stacks.

Wu concedes that the state has made some progress since 2017. In an interview last week, he mentioned a 2021 bill sponsored by Rep. James Frank, R-Wichita Falls, that revised the requirements for when a child could be moved out of the home.

Frank has been a foster parent himself. His bill was based on the premise that keeping the child in the home if at all possible both avoids the inevitable trauma of separation and reduces the number of children who need an often difficult-to-locate place to live. Wu, an attorney who specializes in representing children in Child Protective Services cases, believes the new approach is working. It’s one small step in a long, difficult journey.

One other thing: Jack, unimpeded, needs to stay on the job.

In the words of plaintiffs’ attorney Yetter, “Judge Jack has been a godsend for Texas foster children. I think the 5th Circuit expects her to continue to give careful and close guidance to the reforms needed to ensure safe homes for these vulnerable children. The judge is determined to fix this broken system, and we plan to be there with her every step of the way. The children deserve no less.”

Wu echoed Yetter. “The people involved have no voice,” he told us. “They’re either children or they’re parents, usually poor, who have no political power. I have appreciated having the court there to speak for them.”

We should all appreciate Jack. She’s doing the Lord’s work, which, apparently, Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and other powerful people running the state of Texas have no intention of doing willingly.

That brings us back to a somewhat more spirited version of our original question: Why the hell not?

___

San Antonio Express-News. May 2, 2023.

Editorial: Arming teachers is not a gun violence solution

Imagine it’s May 24 in Uvalde and teachers and other school staff are armed. Could one of them have stopped the 18-year-old shooter from murdering 19 students and two teachers? This is the alternate reality lawmakers are trying to sell. We don’t buy it.

Not only do we not buy it, but we see this type of thinking as a capitulation to violence. Perhaps an armed teacher could limit the carnage — or perhaps another gun in a classroom would make matters worse — but implicit in this type of thinking is an acceptance of continued school shootings. There is nothing about arming teachers that addresses easy access to guns or root causes of violence.

Our lawmakers say school safety is a priority this session, but they’re not doing enough. Instead of pushing commonsense gun reforms such as Uvalde Democratic Rep. Tracy King’s House Bill 2744, which would raise the minimum age to purchase semi-automatic guns from 18 to 21, they are pushing forward a reactive effort to harden schools. King’s bill can’t even get a floor vote even though polling in June from the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin found 70% of respondents either support or somewhat support raising the purchase age for a firearm.

In a 119-25 vote on April 25, the Texas House approved House Bill 3, authored by Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, that would place an armed officer, guardian or district employee on every campus, provide incentives for school employees to become certified to carry a firearm and install silent panic alert buttons in every classroom.

It would also establish statewide standards for campus security, boost coordination between schools and local law enforcement. House Bill 13 would increase the school safety allotment from less than $10 per student to $100.

We’re glad the Legislature is making an effort to keep students safe — there are aspects of these bills we support — but we cannot address gun violence without addressing guns.

The Uvalde murderer waited until he turned 18 to legally purchase his arsenal.

It’s true that in a rampage, saving precious minutes could saves lives, that maybe someone with a gun could make a difference. But let’s also remember that the Uvalde shooter fired off more than 100 rounds in minutes, and stymied officers who initially sought to enter the classroom. Could an armed teacher be better prepared?

During the House hearing last month, Burrows said when he crafted the bill, he kept in mind his conversations with Uvalde grandparents and classroom educators. He also made the common GOP comparison to armed guards at airports, universities, banks, malls, sporting events and the Texas capitol. But schools are different. Schools should be safe places where children go to learn and grow, not fortresses preparing for battle. Lawmakers should be addressing why the gun threatens the school. That’s what is missing here.

We share concerns with state representatives who offered amendments that failed.

State Rep. Vikki Goodwin, D-Austin, wondered why they weren’t discussing gun reforms; she questioned if armed school staff would make schools more dangerous. And State Rep. Ana-Maria Ramos, D-Richardson, whose daughter is a teacher, said teachers don’t want guns in classrooms.

We all want to imagine an alternate reality to what happened in Uvalde. Weeks after the school shooting in Uvalde, we wrote that it was outrageous that arming teachers would be considered a meaningful response to school violence. That the plan to harden schools is acquiescing to more carnage. It’s what we still believe.

The first anniversary of the Uvalde massacre, the second-worst school shooting in America, looms and schools aren’t safe. We understand the need for improved security given the reality of the moment, but, let’s remember that arming teachers and “hardening” schools are reactive accommodations for continued gun violence, not proactive solutions to prevent it. We are disheartened that in Texas, which in the past decade has had more school shootings than any other state, lawmakers are ignoring gun safety reforms. Firearms were the leading cause of death for children and adolescents in 2020.

Imagine it’s May 29 — five days after the Uvalde anniversary and the final day of the 88th legislative session — and our Texas Legislature has done nothing to regulate the purchase of assault-style weapons. What a failure that will be.

END

News from © The Associated Press, 2023