Is Texas staying on daylight saving time? There's only one way for law to take effect
House Bill 1393, also known as "Texas Time," could bring an end to that discussion.
Will Texans have more sunlight year-round? Here's what to know about the bill.
The idea dates back to World War I, although some credit Benjamin Franklin for daylight saving time due to a satirical letter he wrote in 1784 stating: "Every morning, as soon as the sun rises, let all the bells in every church be set ringing: and if that is not sufficient, let cannon be fired in every street to wake the sluggards effectually."
To maximize resources for the war, Germany and Austria implemented the first daylight saving time in 1916. The U.S. did the same in 1918. It's an outdated idea, some argue.
House Bill 1393, referred to as the 'Texas Time" bill, aims to eliminate biannual clock changes and keep Texas on daylight saving time year-round. The bill has successfully passed through the Texas legislature and is now awaiting Governor Greg Abbott's signature. The bill, however, can't take effect unless Congress changes federal law to allow states to adopt daylight saving time permanently.
Supporters argue that maintaining a consistent time year-round would reduce confusion, improve safety, and enhance productivity.
Opponents of permanent daylight saving time cite health and safety concerns, often arguing that maintaining standard time year-round would be the better choice.
Under the federal Uniform Time Act of 1966, states may not currently adopt permanent daylight saving time, but they can opt out of time changes by sticking with standard time year-round. That's how states like Arizona and Hawaii can keep from changing their clocks twice a year.
Texas joins 18 other states that have passed similar permanent daylight saving time measures, and there's interest at the federal level in allowing the change.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Is Texas staying on daylight saving time permanently? It's complicated
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
2 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge says former Trump lawyer Alina Habba has been unlawfully serving as U.S. attorney in New Jersey
WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. — A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Trump's former lawyer, Alina Habba, has been unlawfully serving as the the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey. The court, saying the administration used 'a novel series of legal and personnel moves,' held that Habba's term as the interim U.S. attorney ended in July, and the Trump administration's maneuvers to keep her in the role without getting confirmation from the U.S. Senate didn't follow procedures required by federal law. 'Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,' Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann wrote. The opinion says that Habba's actions since July 'may be declared void.' Brann, a President Obama appointee, said he's putting his order on hold pending an appeal. It wasn't immediately clear if that meant Habba would remain in charge of the U.S. attorney's office. A message seeking comment was sent to Habba's office Thursday. The Justice Department said it intends to appeal the ruling. Brann's decision comes in response to a filing on behalf of New Jersey defendants challenging Habba's tenure and the charges she was prosecuting against them. They sought to block the charges against them, arguing that Habba didn't have the authority to prosecute the case after her 120-day term as interim U.S. attorney expired in July. The defendants' motion to block Habba, a onetime White House advisor to President Trump and his former personal defense attorney, is another high-profile chapter in her short tenure. She made headlines when Trump named her U.S. attorney for New Jersey in March. She said the state could 'turn red,' a rare, overt political expression from a prosecutor, and said she planned to investigate the state's Democratic governor and attorney general. She then brought a trespassing charge, which was eventually dropped, against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka stemming from his visit to a federal immigration detention center. Habba later charged Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver with assault stemming from the same incident, a rare federal criminal case against a sitting member of Congress other than for corruption. She denies the charges and has pleaded not guilty. Volatility over her tenure unfolded in late July when the four-month temporary appointment was coming to a close and it became clear that she would not get support from home state Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both Democrats, effectively torpedoing her chances of Senate approval. The president withdrew her nomination. Around the same time, federal judges in New Jersey exercised their power under the law to replace Habba with a career prosecutor when Habba's temporary appointment lapsed, but Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi fired that prosecutor and renamed Habba as acting U.S. attorney. In his opinion, Brann questioned the legal moves the administration conducted to keep Habba in place. 'Taken to the extreme, the President could use this method to staff the United States Attorney's office with individuals of his personal choice for an entire term without seeking the Senate's advice and consent,' he wrote. The Justice Department has said in filings that the judges acted prematurely and that the executive has the authority to appoint his preferred candidate to enforce federal laws in the state. Trump had formally nominated Habba as his pick for U.S. attorney on July 1, but Booker and Kim's opposition meant that under long-standing Senate practice known as senatorial courtesy, the nomination would stall out. A handful of other Trump picks for U.S. attorney are facing a similar circumstance. Catalini writes for the Associated Press.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump caught Democrats in a trap — torn by their Medicaid lies
This week, President Donald Trump officially launched his push to remove illegal aliens from state Medicaid rolls by cross-checking them against federal databases, a move that's sure to send Democrats running to the courts yet again. But when it comes to illegal immigrants and welfare, Democrats have a serious problem — and it's not just their continuing slide in favorability. It's that they just can't make up their minds about whether or not those here illegally are receiving federal Medicaid dollars at all. Advertisement When Congress was debating Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, one of the left's oft-repeated refrains was that there was no need to ban illegal aliens from Medicaid's rolls — because giving them its benefits was already against the law. They conveniently forgot to mention the 12 states that explicitly expanded non-emergency Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants, and the other gaping loopholes being exploited nationwide. But in June, Trump made a move that forced Democrats drop the act and show their hand: His Health and Human Services Department began sharing Medicaid data from four states and Washington, DC, with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Advertisement Cue the outrage. Within days California Attorney General Rob Bonta, New York AG Letitia James and 19 other blue states filed suit in federal court to block the data-sharing — and gave up the game in the process. Democrats love to lie in the court of public opinion — but in a courtroom, you've got to tell the truth. And by suing to stop Team Trump, they practically confessed: Illegal aliens are on Medicaid, and blue states are desperate to keep it that way. Advertisement Since then HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (or CMS) Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz have doubled down, expanding their partnership with ICE to include nationwide Medicaid data. To help their effort, Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Tex.) demanded that Gov. Kathy Hochul cough up the data on Medicaid-receiving illegal immigrants in the Empire State, citing her legal obligations to regularly report enrollment and eligibility data to the federal government. The Democrats' lawsuits continue their track record of fighting beyond the limits of their power to protect illegal aliens — in this case by keeping their Medicaid data 'safe' — while endangering law-abiding Americans. Their claims that no illegal aliens take advantage of Medicaid benefits also fly in the face of Medicaid's own records. Advertisement Between 2021 and 2023, taxpayers spent at least $16 billion on emergency services for illegal immigrants, CMS has reported, with federal taxpayers covering more than 70% of those costs. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters When you add in the billions likely spent on non-emergency services in direct circumvention of federal law, the total figure of Medicaid resources going to illegal aliens is incalculable — an enormous transfer of wealth from Americans to non-citizens who shouldn't be here at all. Welfare benefits like Medicaid have been some of the strongest magnets spurring mass migration into this country and encouraging people to illegally stay. Halting those perks, as Trump and Republicans in Congress are rightly doing, will do much to turn the magnet off. Stealing from Medicaid is especially grievous because the program is intended to help America's most vulnerable, including low-income children and people with disabilities. When illegal aliens or other ineligible people take Medicaid, they not only suck up taxpayer resources, they reroute precious resources from legitimate Medicaid recipients who already have to compete for a limited pool of providers. It's downright despicable — yet Democrats in Congress and in at least 20 blue states seem more than happy to run interference to ensure that it continues. Advertisement Some Democrats are begging for their party to moderate after November's resounding defeat. Some — like New York City primary voters — are sprinting further to the left. If they want to appeal to the majority of voters in the coming midterms, though, they need to get their Medicaid stories straight. Advertisement More important, they need to get their priorities straight. Instead of robbing from taxpayers to give to law-breakers, Democrats should protect Medicaid for the Americans who truly need it. They could do that by following the lead of Republicans like Gov. Jeff Landry of Louisiana, who just signed a law referring illegal aliens fraudulently receiving welfare to ICE so they can be deported. If Democrats can't make up their minds about illegal aliens and welfare, the American people will make up their minds about the Democrats — and keep rejecting them at the ballot box. Hayden Dublois is the Data and Analytics Director for the Foundation for Government Accountability.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Doggett says he won't run against Casar if Texas maps are approved
Texas Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett said he will not run for reelection in his home district if the Texas redistricting proposal is approved, avoiding a potential member-on-member primary with Rep. Greg Casar, who was drawn into Doggett's district in the new maps. Doggett did not say whether he would retire from Congress if the maps are approved or if he plans to run in another Texas district. The 78-year-old lawmaker has faced pressure from some Democrats to allow Casar to run in the new Austin-area district. A primary in the 37th District between Doggett and Casar could have reopened old fissures in the party over elderly incumbents — a debate amplified last year by Doggett, who was the first Democrat in Congress to call on then-President Joe Biden to drop out of the presidential race. 'If the courts give Trump a victory in his scheme to maintain control of a compliant House, I will not seek reelection in the reconfigured CD37, even though it contains over 2/3rd of my current constituents,' Doggett said in the statement. Doggett said he will run for reelection in his current district if Texas Republicans' 'racially gerrymandered Trump map' is rejected. Doggett's office did not immediately respond to requests for clarification about his intentions if the maps are approved. A spokesperson for Casar declined to comment. Doggett quickly announced his intention to run in his home district last month after Texas released its redrawn maps. Last week, he leaned on Casar to run in the new 35th District, a bloc east of San Antonio where Trump won 54 percent of the vote last year. Days later, Casar's chief of staff said he would only run for Congress in his native Austin, and chastised Doggett for attempting to force him to run elsewhere. 'I had hoped that my commitment to reelection under any circumstances would encourage Congressman Casar to not surrender his winnable district to Trump,' Doggett said in the statement. 'While his apparent decision is most unfortunate, I prefer to devote the coming months to fighting Trump tyranny and serving Austin rather than waging a struggle with fellow Democrats.' Pressure against Doggett ramped up in recent days after David Hogg's super PAC said it planned to financially support Casar if the two members squared off in a primary. Doggett, who holds over $6 million in his campaign account, had said he planned to spend significantly to defend his seat. Hogg's group said they had intended to help Casar make up some of the difference. 'Thank you, Congressman Lloyd Doggett, for letting the next generation lead and for your decades of progressive service. I hope more members of Congress follow his example and pass the torch,' Hogg said in a statement to POLITICO. Play Farm Merge Valley
