Latest news with #TexasEthicsCommission
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Texas Approves Judicial Pay Bump, Boosting Own Pensions
(Texas Scorecard) – In a dramatic, last-minute deal to end the legislative session, Texas lawmakers approved a measure that will raise judicial salaries—and, in turn, increase their own taxpayer-funded pensions. Passed just before the legislature adjourned Sine Die, Senate Bill 293 sets the starting salary for state district judges at $175,000, up from $140,000. Because legislative pensions are tied to judicial salaries, the vote also raises the maximum annual pension for lawmakers to $175,000. The compromise, however, decouples judicial salaries from future legislative pension increases, a move that had been at the heart of a days-long political dispute. While the legislation tasks the Texas Ethics Commission with reviewing and recommending any changes to legislative pensions every five years, that begins in 2030. In the short term, lawmakers' maximum annual pensions will increase by $35,000. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick had accused House sponsor Jeff Leach (R–Allen) of 'killing' the judicial pay raise after Leach's version of the bill removed automatic pension increases for legislators that are typically triggered by judicial salary hikes. Patrick struck down that provision on a rare point of order, citing germaneness. Leach, meanwhile, defended the House's position, saying lawmakers should raise judicial pay without giving themselves a pension bump—a stance backed by House leadership and many rank-and-file members. The stalemate drew the attention of Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who issued a memo over the weekend calling on both chambers to 'find a short-term solution' to address urgently needed judicial pay increases now and revisit the pension debate next session. He noted Texas ranks 49th in the nation in judicial pay. On Sunday night, both chambers appointed conference committees to come up with a compromise. 'While this proposal may not be perfect, I believe it is a thoughtful compromise that balances the concerns of both chambers while achieving our top agenda—that [of] supporting the integrity of our judiciary and getting something done on this issue this session,' said Leach. The legislation passed the Senate unanimously, while it was approved by the House in a 114-26 vote, shortly before both chambers adjourned for the last time during this regular session.
CBS News
3 days ago
- Business
- CBS News
Texas lawmakers' negotiations over judicial pay raises go down to the wire as legislative session ends
Lawmakers at the Texas Capitol negotiated over a single bill Monday afternoon before adjourning sine die. The final measure, Senate Bill 293, increases starting annual salaries for state judges from $140,000 to $175,000. The House and Senate had disagreed over one key issue: pensions for state lawmakers, which are tied to judges' salaries. The House opposed a pension increase for legislators, while the Senate supported it. Under the compromise reached Monday, lawmakers' pensions will increase now, but starting in 2030, the Texas Ethics Commission — not lawmakers — will determine future pension adjustments. Getty Images Among the major bills passed this session: A $1 billion school voucher program allowing students to use tax dollars to attend private schools. $8.5 billion in new funding for public schools. $10 billion in additional property tax relief. A $1 billion biennial investment in water infrastructure to create new sources and repair leaking pipes, pending voter approval in November. Legislation allowing ERCOT, the state's electric grid operator, to shut off power to large users like data centers, provided they have backup power. Bills ending diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) considerations in school district hiring. Measures expanding parental and school board control over public school library content. Other legislation includes abolishing the Texas Lottery Commission and transferring oversight to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, banning cellphones for K-12 students in schools, and requiring Apple and Google to verify users' ages on their apps. Several bills failed to pass, including one that would have replaced the STAAR standardized test and another that would have required Dallas Area Rapid Transit to return 25% of collected sales tax revenue to member cities. "This has been a pretty rough session. I think Democrats are going to come back invigorated. We're going to go into this next election cycle with fire in our eyes, and I think we want the public to come join us. We now hear the cries of the public," said state Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "The things that I and my voters will consider wins are probably not the things that Rep. Wu and his constituents might view as wins. But when I go back home and we have over $44 million in new dollars coming to our public schools, that's a win," said state Rep. Shelby Slawson, R-Stephenville, vice chair of the House GOP Caucus. Watch "Eye on Politics" at 7:30 a.m. Sunday on CBS News Texas, on air and streaming. Follow Jack on X: @cbs11jack
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
In final act, Texas Legislature boosts judges pay and lawmaker pensions
Texas lawmakers passed a bill that will give judges a long-awaited raise and boost their own pensions, after an 11th hour clash between the House and Senate. Texas judges will get a 25% raise, with base pay increasing to $175,000. This bill was not expected to be controversial — both chambers and parties agree this pay raise, the first since 2013, is overdue and necessary to lift Texas out of the bottom for judicial pay among states. Where it hit the skids was around legislator pensions, which are tied to judicial pay. A raise for judges should have meant a pension increase for lawmakers, but the House added an amendment decoupling them. The Senate rejected the proposal, with the disagreement spilling onto social media and pushing beyond the normal deadlines to reach a compromise. On Sunday, the chambers finally agreed to negotiate, and just hours before they closed out the 140 day session, they reached a compromise. Legislative pensions will rise with judicial salaries this time, but will be decoupled going forward. In 2030, the Texas Ethics Commission will take over assessing legislator pensions, as they do for the per diem and other lawmaker benefits. The bill says the commission will come up with equitable rules to determine pension amounts, taking into account possible raises for other elected officials, and reassess every five years. The Senate approved the proposal unanimously, with Sen. Joan Huffman, the Houston Republican who carried the bill, saying it "finally gives the judges of the state of Texas a long, well-deserved raise.' The House voted 114-26, approving the proposal over hesitation from both sides of the aisle. Democrats seemed concerned about cutting the pension benefit, while conservatives indicated they were expecting election season blowback for voting to raise their own pensions. Texas' part-time lawmakers earn $7,200 a year, plus a per diem for days they are in Austin. But those who serve more than eight years are eligible for a pension when they turn 60 (or when they turn 50 if they've served 12 years.) Rather than basing that payout on their meager legislative salary, it's long been tied to the base salary for a district judge, a benefit that allows some of the longest-standing lawmakers to earn annual retirement payments of $140,000 a year. 'For too long, the Legislature has been unwilling to give district court judges the raises that they deserve because it's tied to legislative pensions,' Rep. Brent Money, a conservative Republican from Greenville, said, calling it a 'politically toxic' issue. He said voting for the compromise was a choice between voting for the right thing, or the politically safe thing. "Let's break this stalemate, support our judiciary and face the consequences together," he said. The usual deadline for the chambers to reach a compromise would have been Saturday at midnight. As that deadline came and went without a deal, judges began barraging their legislators with phone calls and emails, demanding they reach a compromise. On Sunday afternoon, both chambers agreed to appoint conferees, including Leach and Huffman. The deal was still being hammered out when the House and Senate gaveled in on the last day of session, usually a ceremonial day to celebrate the wins of the session. Members from both chambers breathed a sigh of relief with the passage of the conference committee report Monday afternoon. 'I don't think I've ever worked so hard on a bill that wasn't mine,' Sen. José Menéndez, D-San Antonio, said Monday. 'I have never gone back and forth as much between the House and the Senate in one day as I have today." First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear GOP activist's lawsuit challenging Texas Ethics Commission's lobbying fine
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to consider a lawsuit from conservative Texas activist Michael Quinn Sullivan against the Texas Ethics Commission, serving another blow to his more than decade-long challenge against the state agency that implements and enforces Texas' campaign finance and lobbying laws. Since 2014, Sullivan, who used to lead a powerful conservative advocacy group called Empower Texans, has challenged an ethics commission decision to fine him $10,000 for failing to register as a lobbyist in 2010 and 2011, repeatedly appealing his case before petitioning the nation's highest court earlier this year to consider it. Last year, the Texas Supreme Court declined his request to overrule two state appeals' court decisions refusing to toss out the fines. Sullivan argued in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that Texas' ethics laws violate the First Amendment rights of 'ordinary citizens,' who are looking to speak to their elected representatives, with burdensome registrations and fees. 'States in some parts of the country are able to curtail the freedoms of speech, petition, and assembly by branding ordinary citizens 'lobbyists' and threatening them with severe financial penalties,' Sullivan's lawyers wrote. 'This Court's review is sorely needed to clarify the circumstances under which the government may require citizens to pay a fee and obtain a license to communicate with their government representatives. Unless and until this Court does so, States can continue—as Texas has done here—to use such requirements to harass or silence those whose speech is disfavored.' The Ethics Commission responded that Sullivan's actions went far beyond an 'average citizen who happened to visit with a lawmaker or who spent a day or two at the Texas Capitol during a legislative session.' The Ethics Commission declined to comment. In a statement, Sullivan's lawyer Tony McDonald said they were grateful for those who urged the Supreme Court to take the case, including Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. 'More and more Texans are waking up to the threat posed by the Texas Ethics Commission to the fundamental freedoms enshrined in our constitution,' McDonald said. 'No Texans should ever be dragged behind closed doors to be investigated over their political speech.' The court's decision means the appeals court decision siding with the ethics commission stands. Sullivan will go back to a district court for a jury trial to determine how much he has to pay. The ethics commission started investigating Sullivan after two former state lawmakers filed a complaint against him asserting that he had acted as an unregistered lobbyist. Sullivan has long contended that his activities with the now-defunct Empower Texans constituted journalism, not lobbying. But the ethics commission rejected that argument. In their 2014 ruling, they pointed to dozens of communications that he routinely sent to Republican lawmakers to discuss legislation and amendments, and encouraged them to vote in alignment with his organization's values. Sullivan also published a Fiscal Responsibility Index ranking lawmakers' conservative bonafides based on their voting record each session. The commission found Sullivan used that scorecard to influence members' votes as part of his job for Empower Texans, another example of lobbying. In court, Sullivan repeatedly tried to argue the ethics commission didn't have the constitutional authority to enforce the state's ethics laws. Initially, Sullivan was able to get the case tried in a Denton County district court instead of Travis County, claiming he moved there. A judge there ruled in Sullivan's favor, but the ruling didn't stick because the case got sent back to Travis County after an appeals court ruled Sullivan didn't actually meet the residency requirements to have the case heard in Denton County from the start. The Travis County judge sided with the TEC, which Sullivan appealed and lost again. Meanwhile, Sullivan filed multiple other cases against the commission, all of which have been denied or dismissed in federal or state district court. In recent months, Sullivan's bid to the nation's high court has drawn support from multiple high profile conservative officials and groups who wrote briefs in support of the activist, including the Cato Institute, the Manhattan Institute and Paxton. Cornyn and Cruz wrote a joint brief. Paxton declined to have his office represent the ethics commission in the case, forcing the agency to hire outside counsel. Since 2014, the commission has put more than $1 million in taxpayer dollars toward outside legal help. In his brief, Paxton backed Sullivan's argument that Texas' lobby laws violate his first amendment rights. 'It is antithetical to the First Amendment that a private citizen working for a nonprofit organization dedicated to fiscal responsibility that does not provide gifts to lawmakers nonetheless must register with the government, make disclosures to the government, and even pay a fee to the government to simply email elected officials about matters of significant public concern,' Paxton wrote. Cruz and Cornyn did not take a position on the fines imposed on Sullivan, but instead argued that the courts have not set a solid precedent about how courts should review lobbying statutes against free speech concerns. 'Applying the appropriate tier of scrutiny when evaluating lobbyist disclosure requirements is crucial to ensuring protected political speech is not unlawfully restricted or silenced,' they wrote. In their response to the petition, the ethics commission said many of the authors of these friend-of-the-court briefs, including ones written by Paxton, and Cruz and Cornyn, 'appear to assume, without any real analysis of the record — that Sullivan did nothing more than write a newsletter and work on a website that 'rated' legislators. Such characterizations belie the actual record that led to a Texas court granting summary judgements in the Commission's favor on the merits of the claims that Sullivan violated Texas law.' First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Political ad transparency bill passes Texas House
The Brief House Bill 366 would require disclosure of substantially altered images, audio and videos. The bill would require disclosure by an officeholder, candidate or political committee that used altered media in ads and spends more than $100 on political advertising. Violators would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a maximum fine of $4,000. AUSTIN, Texas - The Texas House on Wednesday approved a bill requiring political advertisements to disclose if an image, audio or video recording used was substantially altered. House Bill 366, authored by former House speaker Dade Phelen (R-Beaumont), looks to combat the use of generative artificial intelligence that makes it easier to manipulate media to falsely represent an officeholder's or candidate's appearance, speech, or conduct, and potentially mislead voters. What they're saying "It is my goal to prevent someone from impacting or altering an election by using fake media that never occurred in reality, be it AI or deep fakes," Phelan said. Critics of the bill, however, say the bill will be used to limit political speech. "So we know that this bill is going to be abused to put people in jail for political speech," Rep. Nate Schatzline (R-Fort Worth) said. "Is it your intent to limit grassroots organizations from criticizing their elected officials?" The bill excludes broadcasters, companies, commercial sign owners, computer services and internet service providers from liability. "This is the beginning of a new era in ethics where the voters need to know what is real and what is not," Phelan said. "This AI technology gets better every single day. It gets more inexpensive every single day, it's going to become the norm." Phelan said the use of AI in campaigns was leading voters to question if real endorsements were actually real, like when his primary opponent was endorsed by President Donald Trump. "They did not believe it was real, because there's so much out there that's not real," Phelan said. The bill would require disclosure by an officeholder, candidate or political committee that used altered media in ads and spends more than $100 on political advertising. The Texas Ethics Commission would determine what the disclosure form would look like, including font, size and color. Violators would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a maximum fine of $4,000. What's next Phelan's bill passed out of the house by a vote of 102-40. It will go to the Senate, where its future is unknown. The Source Information on House Bill 366 comes from the Texas Legislature. Comments made during Wednesday's House session came from the Texas House of Representatives.
