Recent editorials from Texas newspapers

Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Texas newspapers:

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. April 8, 2017.

Texting while driving is dangerous. Everyone knows that, and most would agree that something needs to be done about it. Now, finally, it looks to be making headway in Austin as the Texas Legislature appears to be on board with passing a law that prohibits the practice.

State Rep. Tom Craddick, R-Midland, has been carrying the torch to get such legislation passed since 2011. The former speaker of the Texas House introduced bills every legislative session, including the current one, to invoke a ban along with penalties for texting while driving. Craddick’s bills have received support each time they were submitted, but for one reason or another they ran into roadblocks in becoming state law.

However, this time the legislation has received added support in the House and Senate, and Gov. Greg Abbott has indicated he is at least receptive to such a law but has not yet said he would definitely sign it. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the head man of the Senate, is also now on board after being opposed to it in past legislative sessions. In addition, several state senators who previously opposed the bill have changed their stance, some because they have had a personal situation that involved texting.

What brought more support to an anti-texting law probably was the recent crash that killed 13 members from First Baptist Church in New Braunfels. The group was returning home from a retreat when their minibus was hit by a pickup driven by a young man who admitted to a witness that he had been texting while driving.

There have been many previous incidents where a texting driver has caused a fatal accident. State Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, has been Craddick’s counterpart in the state Senate in getting such a bill passed. She has reported that there were more than 94,000 driver distraction-related crashes in Texas in 2013 that resulted in 18,000 injuries and 459 deaths. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates eight people are killed every day in the U.S. by a distracted driver.

In the Lubbock area, perhaps the most notable texting incident occurred in 2009 when Alex Brown, a Seagraves High School student, was killed when she rolled over her vehicle because she was texting while driving on her way to school. Her family has been at the forefront of making people aware of the dangers of texting while driving. It was also that incident that spurred Craddick to introduce his initial legislation.

So, why have Craddick’s efforts failed to come to fruition in the past? Mostly because critics of the bills had reservations about its enforcement and were concerned about infringing on people’s private lives. There also have been concerns that such a law could lead to unwarranted stops and searches by law enforcement.

Granted, there are anti-texting laws already on the books. It is illegal to use a cellphone or other mobile device in a school zone and teenage and novice drivers are prohibited from using such devices at all while behind the wheel. There are other anti-texting laws that have been invoked by numerous cities in the state. Lubbock is not one of them, and Texas is one of only four states that don’t have a texting while driving law.

Would such a state law prevent people from texting while driving? Probably not. Some people will continue to use their phones behind the wheel whether there is a law against it or not. Look at how long drunken driving laws have been on the books in this country, yet people still do it, often with dire consequences.

But there is hope. Harvard University professor Jay Winsten is working with federal and Massachusetts officials to develop a new package of public awareness messages. Winsten should know how to accomplish this because he’s the one who came up with the designated driver idea, which has caught on. According to Winsten, it’s not that people aren’t aware of the risks of texting while driving, but surveys show many drivers are mistakenly confident in their ability to multitask. Just as it is with drunken driving, Winsten said tough laws, new technology and education must address distracted driving.

If cities in Texas already have texting laws, why is a state law needed? Mostly because a state law would give more teeth to local enforcement and it would cover areas outside a municipality, which is the case with the New Braunfels incident.

Our concern is that the current proposed penalties for texting in Craddick’s bill aren’t strong enough. As it stands, first offenders would be fined $99 while repeat offenders could be fined up to $200. We think stronger penalties could cause a person to be more cautious about texting.

We wholeheartedly support Craddick’s efforts and encourage the state Senate and Abbott to come on board with this legislation and make sure it passes.

If you happen to be one of those people who text and drive, stop it. If a text message is that important, simply pull over to the side of the road when you can and then handle your business. No text message is more important than your life and the safety of others on the road.

___

San Antonio Express-News. April 8, 2017.

Gov. Greg Abbott, in his continuing attack on what he views as out-of-control local control, turned to the U.S. Constitution recently - specifically, to the 10th Amendment.

The amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Many conservatives and strict constructionists have long cited this amendment to argue against federal overreach - the strictest of these constructionists arguing that virtually anything beyond national defense, declaring war, defending borders and collecting taxes constitutes overreach.

But we wonder if Abbott might be guilty of a bit of overreach of his own. The amendment speaks of powers reserved to the states or “to the people.”

It’s an interesting discussion. Do “the people” include those who vote for local officials who enact ordinances to protect them in the absence of state laws?

So, cities pass smoking bans for bars and restaurants because the state wouldn’t. Or they approve bans on texting while driving because the state can’t - so far - bring itself to do this. In both instances, people are dying or being injured from this inaction.

And then there are city bans - which many in state government view as overreaching - on such things as fracking, which the city of Denton attempted until stopped by the state, and regulations, such as those on ride-hailing. In such cases, we suspect the concerns of Big Oil or ride-hailing companies, more than individuals, might be more of a driver for what the state believes constitutes improper local control.

And we know Big Tobacco frowns on statewide smoking bans.

Abbott and others also cite the need to respect individual rights as cause to trump local control. So the governor is proposing “a broad-based ban on regulations at the local level unless and until certain standards are met.”

This is as devoid of detail as his first attempt at proposing such a broad-based approach - at an event sponsored by the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute. He defended his remarks at a second event by the group about a week later. OK, but what “certain standards”?

Abbott also cites concerns of the business sector - that it be treated uniformly and consistently throughout the state.

The problem is that those businesses do business locally as well as statewide. The issue shouldn’t be solely whether they are treated uniformly, but whether they are treated unfairly. Ride-hailing ordinances, smoking bans and bans on texting while driving don’t rise to that level, in our estimation.

And those individuals who Abbott contends are injured by overreaching local ordinances can vote out of office those who violate their individual rights - unless they are outnumbered by other local individuals who are just fine with these protections. For instance, some cities in Texas say members of the LGBT community deserve protections against discrimination. And the state has been silent on that, too - though a bathroom bill that discriminates against transgender Texans might change that.

Fortunately, state Speaker Joe Straus does not, according to the Texas Tribune, think that a “blanket policy on exerting power from Austin over locals is a particularly attractive idea.”

Abbott argues that the fact that the nation calls itself the United States and not the United Municipalities buttresses his argument. But whether we are talking about states or municipalities, they are governed by “the people,” also referred to in our founding documents.

States should step in when local governments abuse their residents - just as the federal government intrudes (or used to) on state governments when they do. But, by and large, states should not step in when local governments enact local laws that protect people.

Where does that slippery slope end? State control over all facets of local development? Or maybe what businesses have to pay in fees to local governments? How cities and counties assess property taxes? Oh, wait, the Legislature is attempting to do just that at the moment, with Senate Bill 2, which would determine when tax rollback elections occur. And how “local” can we go?

The problem in Texas isn’t a patchwork of rules that businesses and individuals have to live with. It’s the Legislature’s predisposition - in the name of limited government and the primacy of business interests - that leads it to be unreasonably averse to regulation at any level.

But resenting it when local voters, through their local governments, don’t play along.

___

The Beaumont Enterprise. April 10, 2017.

You could call it GoFundMe government. The state of Texas, like the crowd-funding website GoFundMe.com, is considering asking taxpayers to finance the testing of backlogged rape kits.

The House recently gave tentative approval to a bill that would allow drivers renewing their licenses to donate $1 or more to pay for the testing of rape kits awaiting analysis. No other state is believed to be doing anything like that.

The state lab has 3,800 untested kits. Big cities like Houston and Dallas have thousands more. It costs anywhere from $500 to $2,000 to process a single kit.

This is one of those ideas that’s not bad, considering its intentions. But it’s still unsettling.

The testing of rape kits should be done - and done promptly - by local and state government. Each kit could solve a horrible crime - or several since many offenders are serial rapists. Something that important shouldn’t depend on the generosity of donors.

We get it; the Legislature has a budget shortfall. Not everything is getting funded. Lawmakers will have to say no more often than them might like.

But in times like this, priorities should be established. Government should fund its core mission first, and part of that is basic law enforcement.

It’s worth noting that lawmakers will apparently keep the state’s level of border security at $800 million, an amount that was doubled in the last session. That’s even though this is primarily a federal responsibility, and the number of illegal border-crossers has plunged due to President Trump’s tough stance on this issue. The House and Senate could have peeled away, say, $20 million from that appropriation and tested every old rape kit on every shelf.

But that’s not happening, so Texans are back to Plan B - kicking in a few bucks at license renewal time. It may have to do for now, but this session should be the last one it’s needed.

___

The Dallas Morning News. April 10, 2017.

It’s troubling enough that Texas still allows parents to opt out of vaccinating their school-age children with alarming ease.

Almost as stunning is how hard it is for parents to get information on the number of kids claiming exemptions at individual schools, so they can make smart decisions about their risk of exposure.

The way Texas releases records - at the district level instead of the school level - keeps most parents in the dark until it’s too late. Parents have to file tedious and time-consuming open records requests to get school rates.

Meanwhile, clusters of unvaccinated children can form at a school without being reflected in the data or released to the public.

This is leading to the emergence of childhood diseases that had all but disappeared because of advances in medicine and kids on vaccination schedules. In December, a mumps outbreak in Johnson County infected almost 30 people. Dallas County had a mumps outbreak last month, with nearly 60 cases.

That does no one any good. And it’s a danger to the health of all of us.

We applaud two bills - SB 1010 from Amarillo Republican Kel Seliger, and HB 2249 from J.D. Sheffield, R-Gatesville - that aim to fix this and require the government to release school immunization rates.

Consider that nearly 45,000 Texas students in grades K-12 claimed nonmedical exemptions in 2016. That’s a 1,700 percent increase from 2004. Stunningly, parents can opt out with little more than a name, age and an address.

This has been allowed since vaccination skeptics got Texas law changed in 2003 to allow exemptions for philosophical reasons. Fearful and misinformed parents continue to cite discredited research linking vaccines to autism.

It’s mindboggling that Texas allows this to continue. A bill by Dallas Rep. Jason Villalba to curb these exemptions for non-medical reasons died during the last session.

At the very least, lawmakers should now make sure parents are armed with exemption rates at their schools.

“Parents have a right not to get their kids vaccinated, but the kids don’t have an individual right to expose other kids whose parents don’t want to assume that level of risk,” Seliger told The Dallas Morning News.

He’s right.

This information should be as easy to get as STAAR or SAT scores, and it could save kids’ lives.

___

Houston Chronicle. April 10, 2017.

Imagine winning a million or more dollars in the Texas lottery. Life and family history would inextricably shift into two separate timelines: Before Winning and After Winning, with the latter likely marked by unwelcome attention from the media, from those looking for handouts and even from those who mean no good.

The unwanted attention or worse prompted state Rep. Ryan Guillen, D-Rio Grande City, to champion House Bill 59, which would let winners of $1 million or more remain anonymous.

Guillen’s effort is misguided. Should the bill become law, a state agency, in this case the Texas Lottery Commission, would be allowed to be less transparent about its operation by keeping financial information hidden. That is not in the public interest. Allowing winners to collect their awards in anonymity could lead to public suspicion about whether the lottery is being operated honestly. Moreover, there are ways around the publicity that do not involve keeping public records secret.

Guillen told the Texas Tribune that he filed the bill after being approached by a constituent worried that if she won the lottery and the announcement is made public she could be abducted, taken to Mexico and held for ransom. Guillen represents District 31, which encompasses 10 counties in South Texas.

Worries about safety and unwanted attention are a legitimate concern, and there are ample reports from around the country about those who seemed cursed by hitting the jackpot.

Fortunately, there is a solution. Texas is among states that will award lottery prizes to a trust and allow a trustee - usually an attorney - to collect the jackpot without disclosing the name of the ticket holder. That’s a strategy for winners wanting to keep their identity a secret and their privacy intact - and it does not require government intervention.

The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas and the Texas Press Association oppose the bill, believing secrecy invites suspicion about the integrity of the game. Negative public perceptions could easily impact sales, which in the fiscal year that ended in August contributed nearly $1.4 billion to the state’s general revenue fund.

“The bottom line is when the state is paying out a large sum, the public should be able to know the recipient,” said Kelley Shannon, FOI-Texas executive director.

Lottery players last year collected $3.27 billion in prizes, the highest amount of prizes paid out in Texas Lottery history, Texas Lottery Commission executive director Gary Grief points out on the commission’s website. For it to remain popular and successful, Texans need to believe the state is operating it openly and honestly. Knowing who won - either the name of the person or persons or the trust - should not be kept secret.