Home > Opinion Blog

Immigration is now the GOP’s problem to solve, and good luck with that

In this June 6, 2012, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, accompanied by Sen. Mitch McConnell of Ky., right, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. The GOP's election victory Tuesday places them in an undisputed leadership position, which means that they can no longer simply blame the Democrats for the nation's problems. They have to come up with solutions, especially regarding immigration. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

After six years of GOP politicians hammering President Barack Obama on immigration, there’s no longer any argument about whose job it is to solve the problem. GOP politicians from Texas to Washington have insisted for years that they cannot address other aspects of immigration reform until the border is secure.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has led the charge on this front. Texas state Sen. Dan Patrick, the lieutenant governor-elect, suggested in campaign ads that his opponent in Tuesday’s election was somehow comfortable letting thousands of illegal immigrants and ISIS — yes ISIS — into our country because of what he claimed were her lax measures on border security. The GOP has done nothing but blame the Democrats for the state of our border. And they successfully portrayed this as one of the top, if not the top, national security issues.

If that’s the case, then certainly it’s a top agenda item for the Republican leadership to tackle when they take control in January. So let’s turn to the immigration solutions offered in the agenda outlined in today’s Wall Street Journal by Sen. Mitch McConnell, the likely Senate majority leader, and House Speaker John Boehner. Hmm, the list their top priorities as: repeal Obamacare, authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, push the Hire More Heroes veterans-employment act, promote innovative charter schools. As they write in the Journal, they also plan to address:

• The insanely complex tax code that is driving American jobs overseas;

• Health costs that continue to rise under a hopelessly flawed law that Americans have never supported;

• A savage global terrorist threat that seeks to wage war on every American;

• An education system that denies choice to parents and denies a good education to too many children;

• Excessive regulations and frivolous lawsuits that are driving up costs for families and preventing the economy from growing;

• An antiquated government bureaucracy ill-equipped to serve a citizenry facing 21st-century challenges, from disease control to caring for veterans;

• A national debt that has Americans stealing from their children and grandchildren, robbing them of benefits that they will never see and leaving them with burdens that will be nearly impossible to repay.

Sounds ambitious. But, amazingly, they seem to have overlooked immigration and border security. This enormously huge crisis affecting our southern border — the one that Democrats were so lax in dealing with and that only Republicans were capable of addressing head on because of Ebola and ISIS and the implications for the survival of our nation — is nowhere to be found in the McConnell-Boehner agenda.

Sorry guys, you don’t get off that easily. You are required to come up with a border security plan. Your legislation also must address: increased funding for border security, increased hiring of thousands of border patrol officers, increased funding for detention facilities, increased funding for immigration courts to reduce the current backlog of tens of thousands of cases. And you must do this now because this is one of the top scare-tactic issues that GOP candidates used to win this election.

Okay, you won. Now, let’s hear your solutions.

My biggest election surprise: Patrick over Van de Putte among Hispanic men

Texas Republican candidate for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick speaks to the media at his election party headquarters Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2014, in Houston. (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan)

A conventional wisdom bubbled up among media people like myself about the tenor of Republican Dan Patrick’s message on immigration. We concluded that his hard-edged border security focus in his campaign for lieutenant governor was going to stampede Hispanic voters into the waiting arms of Democratic statewides.

Wrong. Or at least partially wrong.

Patrick trailed Leticia Van de Putte among Hispanic voters by only 52-46, according to NBC’s exit polling on the race. I said “only,” because the 40 percentage range among Hispanics was once a mark of distinction for statewide Republicans. When George W. Bush reached 40 percent among Hispanics in balloting for governor, it was heralded as a breakthrough. Patrick was well into the 40s despite his so-called “anti-immigrant” rhetoric and calls for, among other things, repeal of in-state college tuition for Texas high school grads who are in the country illegally.

Here’s the big surprise for me: Patrick thumped Van de Putte among Hispanic men, 53-46. These voters clearly didn’t find Patrick’s tough immigration stance offensive.

One possible explanation is that Patrick had a lower-key fall race, letting the toughest talk from the primary fight mostly fade into memory. He didn’t do much to stoke those embers, but he didn’t run from his positions, either, such as during the one televised debate in the contest and in his TV ads that stressed border security.

Another explanation is that some Hispanics saw the name “Van de Putte” and thought it belonged to some Dutch banker. Was Van de Putte’s ethnicity known to enough Hispanics? Would more money and advertising have made a difference?

Another surprise is this: Patrick did better than fellow Republican and governor-elect Greg Abbott in all Latino categories, compared to NBC exit polling in the governor’s race. Details:

– All Latino voters: Patrick 46, Abbott 44

– Latino men: Patrick 53, Abbott 49

– Latino women: Patrick 40, Abbott 39

This is astounding, considering Abbott’s big play for Hispanic votes based on his wife’s Mexican ancestry. How many times did you see his “Madrina” ad touting the support of his mother-in-law? They were cut in both English and Spanish and ran statewide. You might conclude from this that there’s a point of diminishing returns if you pound men with warm fuzzies about their mothers in law.

Another surprise on Hispanic voting: Despite his outreach, Abbott did only marginally better this year in the Rio Grande Valley than Perry did four years ago.

– In Cameron County, it was Abbott 42, Perry, 41. Patrick got 37 percent.

– In Hidalgo County, it was Abbott 35, Perry 32. Patrick got about 30 percent.

Another consideration is voter turnout among Hispanics. I haven’t found statewide estimates, but Hidalgo County’s vote seemed paltry, at less than 26 percent of registered voters.

A teacher’s confession: Why did I wait so long to actually shadow students?

One of the takeaways from a teacher's "shadowing experiment" is that students simply sit too much at school. (DMN Staff Photo)

Am I the only one who feels beaten down reading so much about arguments among the adults in our local schools rather than a committed partnership to improve things for kids in the classrooms? Politics always seem to capture everyone’s attention, probably because conflict has a lot more sizzle than curriculum does.

In the spirit of focusing on substance, I want to get this very good education idea  in front of our readership:

A teacher with significant experience in classrooms in several U.S. states and abroad recently “confessed to a terrible mistake:” She taught for 15 years before realizing that among the most important things she should have done her first year was to shadow a student for a day.

At her principal’s suggestion, Alexis Wiggins became a student actually for two days –  shadowing and completing all the work of a 10th grade student on one day and doing the same for a 12th grade student on another day. She then went back and did extensive interviews with a number of students to determine that her experiences were, in fact, the norm.

This blog post by Washington Post reporter Valerie Strauss provides both background on the experiment and Wiggins’ report on her experiences. Most important? Key takeaways and good specifics on how Wiggins is incorporating what she learned to make some bold changes in her classroom.

It’s also a reminder that, oftentimes, the most important stuff is the simplest — but that just because the challenge is simple doesn’t mean it’s easy to correct. You may say, “hey, I knew that already,” but do you know how it feels from a student’s perspective? And, more important, if we know all this stuff, why haven’t more classrooms nationwide changed?

Here were Wiggins’ top takeaways and solutions, which I have greatly abbreviated. I’d encourage you to read the full explanations from Wiggins.

1. Sitting is exhausting. Solutions Wiggins is using every day, even if it means she covers less content:
– Mandatory stretch halfway through the class
– Put a Nerf basketball hoop on the back of my door and encourage kids to play in the first and final minutes of class.
– Build in a hands-on, move-around activity into every single class day.

2. High school students send 90 percent of their time listening.
– Offer brief, blitzkrieg-like mini-lessons with engaging, assessment-for-learning-type activities following directly on their heels.
– Set an egg timer every time I get up to talk and all eyes are on me. When the timer goes off, I am done.
– Ask every class to start with students’ Essential Questions or just general questions born of confusion from the previous night’s reading or the previous class’s discussion. I would ask them to come in to class and write them all on the board, and then, as a group, ask them to choose which one we start with and which ones need to be addressed.

I love this point from Wiggins related to the solution above: “This is my biggest regret right now – not starting every class this way. I am imagining all the misunderstandings, the engagement, the enthusiasm, the collaborative skills, and the autonomy we missed out on because I didn’t begin every class with fifteen or twenty minutes of this.”

3. Students feel a little bit like a nuisance all day long.
– Dig deep into my personal experience as a parent where I found wells of patience and love I never knew I have, and call upon them more often when dealing with students who have questions.
– I would make my personal goal of “no sarcasm” public and ask the students to hold me accountable for it.
– I would structure every test or formal activity like the IB exams do – a five-minute reading period in which students can ask all their questions but no one can write until the reading period is finished.

Wiggins conclusion:

I have a lot more respect and empathy for students …Teachers work hard, but I now think that conscientious students work harder. I worry about the messages we send them as they go to our classes and home to do our assigned work, and my hope is that more teachers who are able will try this shadowing and share their findings with each other and their administrations. This could lead to better “backwards design” from the student experience so that we have more engaged, alert, and balanced students sitting (or standing) in our classes.

HUD’s complaint against Dallas City Hall fizzles to an end

1600 Pacific Building (David Woo/The Dallas Morning News)

This all started years ago with a terrible plan to redevelop the old 1600 Pacific Building, better known as the LTV Tower, on Elm Street downtown.

The two developers who pitched the plan City Hall, Curtis Lockey and Craig MacKenzie, simply did not have a workable deal. If the city had signed on, it would have spelled boondoggle and mess for this part of the city.

Thankfully, the city didn’t sign on to the deal. The 1600 Pacific partnership went into bankruptcy, and the saga began.

Lockey and MacKenzie have complained for years that the city’s decision to turn down their deal amounted to an effort to keep low-income residents out of downtown.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development took a look and came up with a laundry list of purported violations.

Worse, the feds looked ready to force City Hall to pay out millions to the partnership behind 1600 Pacific LP.

Anyone who had reviewed this deal at any level should have been astounded. The redevelopment plan wasn’t only unworkable (units as small as 325 square feet) Lockey and MacKenzie didn’t have much skin in the game – at least not compared to what they wanted the city to put up.

Late yesterday, HUD relented. The city will pay nothing to anyone. HUD acknowledged some of its findings were incorrect. The city gets a mild slap on the wrist and promises to update HUD on its fair housing work.

For all of the hair-pulling this thing created, it amounted to almost nothing.

Having watched people like John Greenan, Jack Matthews, the Hamiltons and others work hard to bring quality fair-housing downtown, I was hardly surprised. Downtown will eventually be a place with sky-high rents that price many of us out (already is in some ways). But the city and good developers have taken steps already to ensure there are affordable homes there. Lockey and MacKenzie’s deal was not a step in the right direction. It’s good to see HUD say that’s so.

A coming Senate battle between Ted Cruz and John Cornyn?

A coming battle between Ted Cruz and John Cornyn?

Ted Cruz, left, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, at an Austin rally in 2012, in more conciliatory times. (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman)

Even before the Republican wave washed over the U.S. on Tuesday night, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was signalling his priorities should the GOP gain control of the Senate. In a Washington Post profile last weekend, he was clear: No more Mr. Nice Guy. Republicans should use the new power to be as conservative and confrontational as the GOP-dominated House has been.

Cruz said the first order of business should be a series of hearings on President Obama, “looking at the abuse of power, the executive abuse, the regulatory abuse, the lawlessness that sadly has pervaded this administration.”

And in a USA Today op-ed last month, where he laid out what the priorities of a GOP-led Congress should be, he wrote that lawmakers should “pursue all means possible to repeal Obamacare. … We should pass repeal legislation (forcing an Obama veto), and then pass bill after bill to mitigate the harms of Obamacare.”

Contrast Cruz’s tone and message with that of our state’s senior senator, John Cornyn, who is set to be the majority whip come January. In a sitdown with the Austin American-Statesman’s editorial board last month, he gave a message of compromise:

“If we don’t meet the challenge, that’s the kiss of death for a Republican president in 2016,” he said. “… Some people have told me that the 2016 election is right around the corner and you are going to have a tough time dealing with people who are aspiring to run for president to cooperate with the majority. The truth is if they don’t, then we’re not going to be able to do anything and we’ll be mired down in the same dysfunction we’re currently in.”

And on Tuesday night, Cornyn was still preaching the same tune: “Campaigns are one thing, and governing’s another. And I hope we can separate the two,” Cornyn said. “We can only go halfway. The president’s going to have to meet us halfway, but I think we need to try. What we’re doing isn’t working. For anybody.”

Which side will win out? I, for one, will be rooting for governance over gridlock. It seems to me that Cruz is focused on winning a battle; Cornyn is focused on the war.

 

And what of Mark Cuban’s Wonderview plan for southern Dallas development?

A small lake and view of downtown Dallas are part of Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban's property in southern Dallas. (DMN Staff Photo)

The Preston and Northwest Highway area has been abuzz repeatedly this past year over several development plans that residential neighbors thought were terrible ideas. Now Mark Cuban is part of the debate in this part of town, which he also calls home. DMNer Tom Benning has the story here.

Like Tom, I emailed back and forth with Cuban earlier this week in order to learn more about what what his plans are. But my interest was hinged to how those plans for the property buy-up near Northwest Highway might fit in with the last development project I recall — Wonderview back in 2010.

In retrospect, the “Bridging the Gap” team got more excited than perhaps was warranted when Cuban’s east Oak Cliff plan was announced.  Here’s the hopeful editorial we wrote at the time. More recently, colleague Jim Mitchell assessed why “nothing’s happening at Wonderview” in this blog post.

So when I heard that Cuban was considering some type of office project in the Preston Hollow area, I wondered whether he had given up on his southern Dallas plan. His response:

It is unfortunate that a former consultant got everyone excited at the time [of the Wonderview announcement]. There was a reason why you never heard from me. We had made no decisions. We have discussed a lot of different things with a lot of different people, but haven’t made any decisions.

My hope is to do something with the property. That is why I bought it. But as with any and all of my real estate holdings, it’s a marathon, not a sprint. I’m not going to do anything till I think it’s the right thing to do.

As Tom notes in today’s post, there are somewhat vague reports out there that “Cuban’s representatives have floated the idea of a denser development, and a compact group of properties near Preston Center would seem to fit that bill. But no plans have been presented in writing, and Cuban hasn’t sought any zoning changes.”

One thing is clear — Cuban has folks stirred up in both his former neighborhood — and his current one, just west of the Tollway. And not in a good way.

The DMN editorial board, meanwhile, will keep fingers crossed that the real estate marathon that Cuban referenced in regard to his land holdings pays off for southern Dallas, and his Wonderview project is able to cross the finish line before a Cuban development sprouts in the already bustling Preston and Northwest area. He’s likely to get a far more welcoming reception when he breaks ground in southern Dallas than he would in Preston Hollow.

Replace South Dallas/Fair Park trust fund with southern Dallas development corporation

World War II aircraft sit parked in front of the Dallas Executive Airport terminal building. (DMN Staff Photo)

Two southern Dallas-related news stories on yesterday’s DMN Metro cover illustrate how  one decades-old sketchy effort that uses public dollars undercuts taxpayer trust in a completely separate, and decent, idea to help the south half of our city.

The legitimate idea, under the headline “Council panel backs incentives for Commemorative Air Force,” involves using public funds to support this group’s  relocation to Executive Airport.

It’s a lot of money — and it’s important the City Council follow through on linking phased-in funding to CAF commitments. But Executive Airport and the surrounding area need the economic jump-start that the project offers. (Likewise, residents deserve detailed, written explanations of how often the noisy planes will be flying; council members have pledged to get that info and review it with residents.)

The biggest threat to the CAF funding — and other good ideas that come along in southern Dallas — isn’t concerns about noise. It’s lack of public trust due to stuff like this, another headline on the Tuesday Metro page:  “City audit questions [South Dallas/Fair Park] trust fund.”

This is the same program that has been pounded for three decades with similar audits for specious spending and waste. Again, it has gotten a tongue-lashing from the Dallas city auditor. The problem is that a tongue-lashing likely will be the end of it.

Consider the eery similarities between Tuesday’s story and the DMN news article on the 2011 audit. Seriously, they are almost word for word the same issues and “answers.”

In both audits/stories, the fund “continues to experience difficulties in managing grant and loan programs.” And in both, the city assured us that the audit raised “mostly procedural issues that had been resolved.”

Go back farther in the clips and you’ll see rerun after rerun of this “problem-but-problem solved” conversation. The DMN archives contain DOZENS of stories about questionable actions — and some cases of downright misuse — since the trust fund’s 1989 inception.

Some of the transgressions would actually be entertaining — if it weren’t our tax dollars at stake. So rather than look back, let me try to persuade you to put pressure on City Hall to consider a solution.

Our editorial page last broached this solution after the troubling 2011 audit, in a piece entitled in the print paper: “Magical Money Fountain: Fair Park fund requires independent oversight.”

Crickets. Not long after we moved on to other southern Dallas issues and let this one alone. But that’s about to change.

(Quick aside: The South Dallas Fair Park trust fund, which as best I can tell generally gets close to $1 million each budget year, is not without its successes. For instance, this year it was part of a coalition that funded a health clinic in South Dallas and provided a loan to the popular Two Podners Bar-B-Que across from Fair Park.)

But no one could make a persuasive argument that this trust fund is getting the most bang for the buck — and that’s what taxpayers are owed. It’s no surprise that some of the comments on my Monday post related to capital in underserved communities referenced the South Dallas Fair Park trust fund as Exhibit No. 1 for why things don’t work in southern Dallas.

I plan to propose an editorial calling for the council to consider a radical restart of this fund, possibly as part of its next discussion about the Mayor’s Fair Park Task Force plan, which is currently in the hands of the parks department

Let’s push past all the politics of how this fund came to be in the first place, the historical significance of it and who is trying to appease whom by quietly keeping it in the general fund budget each year.

Instead, let’s find a way to do it better. One possibility, which we presented way back in the first year of the Bridging Dallas’ North-South Gap project, is to create a development corporation connected to, but not reliant on, City Hall. The public-private umbrella organization would leverage federal and state funds, plus various pipelines of municipal money, to create big wins in southern Dallas.

The World Wide Web seems to have no record of that editorial. So I’ve pasted it on the jump of this post. Certainly, the players have changed (and note that this was so long ago that we were still using honorifics on second reference!) and some of the details need tweaking. We pinned our enthusiasm at the time on then-Mayor Tom Leppert’s southern Dallas task force getting behind the idea. That never happened.

But it’s still the best way forward. Or at least a good starting point.

Continue reading →

Can the Party of No deliver what American voters want?

Sen. Ted Cruz, (R-Texas), speaks during the family leadership summit in Ames, Iowa Saturday Aug. 10, 2013. (Justin Hayworth/AP)

The next two years are going to be very exciting. The pressure is off for Democrats. The Republicans will now be in control of both the House and Senate, which means the weight of the world rests on the shoulders of soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner.

The Democratic minority will be the least of their problems for the next two years. They now must identify whatever it is that a fickle American electorate wants to see and deliver something those voters can embrace as a form of action that moves the country forward. Apparently, a vastly improved economy, rising employment and, yes, a dramatically tightened southern border are not the answer. Americans want more of something, but it’s not quite clear what. All they know is that they think the Republicans can do it better than the Democrats, which means the onus is now on the GOP to deliver.

This means actual legislation, as opposed to what they’ve spent the past six years doing, which is saying no to everything the Democrats proposed. That tactic won’t work anymore. They are in the hot seat, and they’re the ones who have to make voters happy. Good luck with that.

Standing in their way will not be Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. It’ll be our own Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who still seems to think that No is still the answer to every question. Cruz will try to block anything that smacks of immigration reform. Cruz will try to block anything that smacks of capitulation to Obamacare. Cruz will be the wrecking ball at the Republican Party’s party.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Cruz repeatedly last night whether he would commit to supporting McConnell as majority leader — just supporting his election to the position, not necessarily embracing McConnell’s agenda — and Cruz again spouted his favorite word: No. I’m pretty sure the only way to get this guy to say the word “yes” is to ask him whether Ted Cruz is the most brilliant politician ever to work in Washington.

Finally, we are at the moment of decision for America. If the country truly wants to go the Ted Cruz route of wrecking-ball extremism, the next two years will decide that. But since only about a third of Americans actually took the trouble to vote this time, this is hardly a representative sample of support for the Cruz agenda.

And since only a fraction of the winners on Tuesday night embrace Cruz’s politics, it’s doubtful that his agenda will get anywhere in Washington. Which means that the big fight ahead will be the Ted Cruz wrecking ball faction against the rest of Republicans who actually want to get their presidential and legislative candidates elected in 2016.

Democrats pretty much just have to sit back and enjoy the show for now as they watch the Republicans try to deliver while their fellow Republicans try to stop them.

Denton’s ban on fracking should be allowed to stand

Austin should honor the will of Denton's voters (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast, File)

So what will it be local control or Austin big-footing the will of City of Denton voters?

Well, it looks the big-footing has begun.

Texas Railroad Commissioner David Porter chided Denton voters for having “fallen prey to scare tactics and mischaracterizations of the truth.” Porter then warned that “bans based on misinformation — instead of science and fact — potentially threaten this energy renaissance and as a result, the well-being of all Texans.”

Railroad Commissioners usually stay out of such local votes so it seems that Porter and a few lawmakers are ready to support the oil and gas industry’s efforts to undo Denton’s vote. They all miss the underlying point of the Denton vote.

Denton residents voted to  ban hydraulic fracturing within city limits because they felt  they were not being heard. In parts of the city, wells are mere yards from homes. Residents wanted a voice in determining their quality of life. They didn’t get it, so they organized to put the issue on the ballot. And, yesterday 59 percent of voters said they didn’t want fracking in the city.

As my colleague Rudy Bush notes, democracy requires elected officials to listen to the will of the people. There were previous efforts to set reasonable restrictions, but industry opposition found an endless number of loopholes.

A ban is not the best solution for  those who crunch numbers and come up with a macro-economic analysis of the financial benefits of hydraulic fracturing. In the abstract, fracking is the backbone of Texas’ energy resurgence.

But so are average Texans. They are right to want restrictions and exercise the power of the ballot box to decide whether profits should be made at their expense. Legislators and regulators should honor those decisions.

Denton wasn’t the only community to take a stand on hydraulic fracturing last night. Santa Barbara County in California rejected a proposed ban after the oil and gas industry spent close to $6 million opposing it. However, anti-fracking measures in San Benito and Mendocino Counties passed last night.

Three separate votes and two different outcomes.  Each reflects the desire of the people who have made a reasoned decision about what they want in their community.

Texas Faith: How should we incorporate faith into a secular political world?

The writer Karen Armstrong recently noted that it was through bitter experience the west learned to separate the state from religion and wonders why Muslims have “found it impossible to arrive at this logical solution to their current problems.”

“Why do they cling with perverse obstinacy to the obviously bad idea of theocracy? Why, in short, have they been unable to enter the modern world?”

We’ve all asked these questions so often. If only these extremists would lay down their arms and embrace plural, diverse societies, they would see the benefit.

But as Armstrong so clearly writes, the path to our sort of secular and plural society, where we try to divide politics and religion, has been anything but bloodless.

“If some Muslims today fight shy of secularism, it is not because they have been brainwashed by their faith but because they have often experienced efforts at secularisation in a particularly virulent form. Many regard the west’s devotion to the separation of religion and politics as incompatible with admired western ideals such as democracy and freedom.”

Acknowledging this past is important, even if it is unlikely to impress fanatics and extremists.

Perhaps more helpful questions for us are these: how do we, as people practicing and preserving our faiths, segregate the political from the spiritual in our own lives? What lessons can we offer those who want their faith to infuse all elements of their lives and are skeptical of a society and political system that calls for secularism? Are we fooling ourselves that we can have both? Are we cheating one aspect of our lives, spiritual or civic, to serve the other?

Our panelists respond on the jump. Continue reading →

Texas Legislature: Respect Denton’s fracking ban

Topher Jones, of Denton, Texas, Edward Hartmann, of Dallas and Angie Holliday of Denton, Texas, hold a campaign sign outside city hall, in Denton, Texas. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

The city of Denton showed last night what happens when industry pushes too far into people’s lives and too close to their homes.

In a vote that the oil and gas industry and the legislators they support should hear very loudly, the city’s residents agreed to ban hydraulic fracturing within their city limits.

What do you expect will happen next? Will the Republican legislature, the one whose members so often decry the heavy hand of Washington, respect the will of a local populace?

During the next snow in July.

No, lawsuits will pile up against this ban. That’s certain.

But more harmful would be a legislative attempt (that will surely be successful) to diminish or eliminate the ability of local people and municipalities to control what happens within their own boundaries when it comes to oil and gas exploration.

We will probably hear lots of talk about streamlining regulation and how it’s important that everyone across the state is on the same page.

That’s double-talk and justification for taking away the power of local people to control what kind of industry is set up in their own backyards.

Did Denton’s ban go too far? Possibly.

An all out ban was sure to draw fire. But what drove the city to be so arrested by this issue? There are 272 active wells in Denton right now. And some of those wells are too close to people’s homes and businesses. Industry didn’t respect people’s legitimate concerns. So the people want them gone. That’s how it’s supposed to work. There are consequences in a democracy when you don’t listen to the people.

But when it comes to oil and gas in Texas, the people’s concerns are a quaint impediment. And it won’t be long before we see that votes like this one don’t matter to the people who run this state. That’s not only too bad; it’s foolish and dangerous, brushing away the will and the worries of voters.

With any luck, there will once again be a political price to pay.

Denton is poised to make history with a fracking ban

Denton voters are approving a ban on fracking (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast, File)

There are still many votes to be counted but Denton city voters are on track to pass a ban on hydraulic fracturing. This is a remarkable statement.  Cities have passed rules to allow gas drilling under tight restrictions. An outright ban is really new territory.

The ban will face legal tests. The eyes of the nation have been on this outcome, or more to the point, how it got to this point. In most instances, citizens have complained to their City Council and have gotten mixed receptions. Actually getting a proposition onto the ballot for citizens to vote the question up or down was sheer political genius.

An ad hoc group knocked on doors, gathered signatures and forced the issue to a public showdown. Once on the ballot, the issue was pressed through social media. In a state known for protecting mineral rights for landowners, the oil and gas industry was outflanked.

This battle is not over but  the template for anti-fracking forces elsewhere in the country   may have been written tonight in Denton.

Greg Abbott headed to win of historic proportions

Republican Greg Abbott appeared headed to a greater share of the vote than predecessor Rick Perry achieved in three elections for governor (Pat Sullivan/The Associated Press)

Democrats tempered their expectations as Election Day neared, as it became more obvious that Wendy Davis wasn’t going to prove savior-in-sneakers.

If they couldn’t win, they hoped their efforts on Davis’ behalf — including the much-celebrated Battleground Texas push led by former Obama campaign veterans — at least would set the table for 2018.

The numbers of note were 12 and 42. Democrat Bill White’s margin of defeat to Rick Perry in 2012 was 12 percent; White’s share of the vote was 42 percent. If Davis could beat either number, Texas Democrats could claim progress, followed by more fund-raising.

As this night has worn on, all of that has appeared more and more unlikely.

Davis slipped to less than 40 percent of the vote, while Republican Greg Abbott’s lead ticked up from 16 to 18 to 20 to 22 percent.

Did you think Bill White would represent the good ol’ days?

Another fun fact: Perry faced the voters three times for governor, in 2002, 2006 and 2010. His winning percentages of the vote: 57.80, 39.02 and 54.97.

Abbott passed 60 percent about 9:30 p.m. and, if he maintained that through the final precincts, he would finish with a greater share of the vote in his first gubernatorial run than Perry ever did.

Obviously, this is not how Wendy Davis or Battleground Texas drew it up. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Better pay for Dallas council members could be on the way

At least with the early votes and a few precincts in, Dallas voters appears to have gotten the message that paying council members a little better might lead to better government.

The margin is fairly close, and the tide could change when all votes are counted but so far, so good.

If this holds, a council member’s pay will jump from $37,500 to $60,000. That’s enough to hopefully attract a broader field of professional candidates across the city to get into politics.

Almost all of the other props appear poised to pass, including important reforms to the redistricting process.

Our board has supported that for some time. The reforms that ended up going before voters are a little watered down. But they will at least limit incumbents’ ability to speak to redistricting commissioners outside of public meetings.

Oddly, voters are resoundingly rejecting what I thought was an innocuous change to the way residents are notified about changes to the city’s thoroughfare plan. The amendment was confusing. That’s probably the problem. The way it reads is a little scary. But I’m not sure the change was very substantive beyond saving the city some money on postage.

What’s the deal with Dallas Prop 3?

A morning commuter takes the bike lane across the Jefferson Blvd viaduct into downtown Dallas. (Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News)

Dallas voters had nine props to consider on today’s ballot, and our newspaper recommended voting in favor of all of them. (Here’s the editorial.) I thought the most controversial propositions would be Prop 6 (much-needed reforms on council redistricting) and Prop 8 (meaty salary raises for council members and future mayors).

Looking at the returns, as they stand now with early voting and three other precincts reporting, Prop 6 is is sailing through — not too surprising. Prop 8 is a squeaker; also not surprising.

And then there’s Prop 3, the only charter amendment that’s not currently passing. What’s going on?

Take a look at vote counts as of 9 p.m.:

Dallas Prop 1- Ballots for Bond Programs: 90 percent in favor

Dallas Prop 2 – Dallas Prop 2- Restrictions on Contracts: 65 percent in favor

Dallas Prop 3- Thoroughfare Plan Notices: 37 percent in favor

Dallas Prop 4- Nondiscrimination: 77 percent in favor

Dallas Prop 5- Budget for City Auditor: 80 percent in favor

Dallas Prop 6- Redistricting Process: 86 percent in favor

Dallas Prop 7- Resign To Run For Office: 85 percent in favor

Dallas Prop 8- Increasing Compensation: 51 percent in favor

Dallas Prop 9- Technical Amendments: 89 percent in favor

Here’s the language of Prop 3:

Allowing Certain Changes to the Thoroughfare Plan Without Mailing Notice to Adjacent Property Owners – Shall Chapter XV, Section 8 of the Dallas City Charter be amended to,allow,changes to the Thoroughfare Plan that affect any area larger than one square mile and that does not increase the dimensional classification of a thoroughfare to be noticed through an alternate notice authorized by city council

Looks as if voters were scared off by the language there — maybe that changes to the thoroughfare plan would be sneaked in without notifying the property owners nearby.

But here’s how a writer at Bike Friendly Oak Cliff described the prop in the run-up to the election:

The best news comes on Proposition 3, which would remove the arduous process of changing the legal description of a street in Dallas. …

The story goes that a group in East Dallas got this measure [the original law] passed to prevent the widening of Swiss Avenue from two lanes to six in the 1960s or 70s. The unintended consequence of the law was that it made it a lengthy process to reduce lanes to include bicycle, transit and pedestrian infrastructure. Currently for projects like Ft Worth Avenue it took over one year to complete the legal changes to convert two lanes to bike lanes. Voting For this measure would remove the public notice requirement for doing such projects and should result in a much quicker process for building bike lanes on streets! Wisely the proposition does not retract the provision for widening streets…those will still need a public notice process and multiple public meetings to move forward, win win!

How many people pushing the “against” button (or the “for” button, for that matter) understood that?

Texas isn’t a purple state quite yet

No surprise, Texas is still a Red state despite heavy efforts to turn it purple (Andy Jacobsohn/The Dallas Morning News)

Early voting has become the canary in the coal mine for elections. If a trend is to emerge, early voting usually tells that story. Right now, that story is the Texas doesn’t appear to be trending purple.

Republicans, especially incumbents, are leading virtually all state races by pretty healthy margins. It is hard to find a Democrat breaking the 40 percent barrier. Sen. John Cornyn has a big lead with about 60 percent of the vote. So does Greg Abbott over Wendy Davis for governor.  Ken Paxton is on his way to becoming Texas Attorney General. Dan Patrick is leading for Lt. Gov.

So what does this mean? Despite Democratic strengths in the state’s largest cities, Texas remains solidly red.

Do you believe in miracles? Well, wait for another election

The ride has been a blast, but it's just about over for Democrat Wendy Davis, after early voting numbers reveal a significant deficit against Greg Abbott (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman and The Associated Press)

If the Wendy Davis campaign had Al Michaels on retainer, they can cut him loose. No miracles tonight.

I’ve never been accused of political expertise, but it would seem obvious that Davis needed to be within striking distance of Republican Greg Abbott in early voting. That would give her a chance to pull it out on Election Day.

Instead, she’s down by more than 18 points in early returns. With the first 1.7 million votes counted, Abbott was at 58.47 percent to Davis’ 40.04. A well-funded Democrat with a coordinated turnout machine could close the gap, but that’s more gap than Davis plus Battleground Texas can handle.

You might have been dubious about predictions of 100 percent rain, but after a day of heavy showers across pretty much every inch of North Texas, it doesn’t look good for the blues.

I still don’t know exactly why, but if conventional wisdom holds and bad weather depresses Democratic turnout more than Republican, there aren’t enough counties for Davis to make up that difference.

It was amusing Friday when Battleground Texas — the effort led by veterans of the Obama campaigns to “turn Texas blue” — screwed up basic statistics and proclaimed early voting turnout running 36 percent ahead of 2010, only to have to retract:

In the memo, Battleground Texas senior adviser Jeremy Bird, who was national field director of President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, wrote:  ”The early vote numbers this year are very encouraging for [gubernatorial nominee] Wendy Davis and the Democratic ticket – and all signs point to this being a fight to the finish.” [...]

Hours later, the organization had to remove that memo from its website, after it became clear that Battleground Texas was using inaccurately low tallies from 2010. Spokeswoman Lynda Tran said by email that its initial estimates were “inadvertently based on incomplete data.”

Meanwhile, the campaign of GOP gubernatorial nominee Greg Abbott came up with a different conclusion: Early voting, which began Oct. 20 and ended Friday,  drew fewer ballots than it did in 2010.

In fact, early voting turnout lower than 2010, coupled with predictions of day-long rain, led Dallas County elections administrator Toni Pippins-Poole to downgrade her turnout prediction a couple of percentage points.

I suspect this newspaper will spill some ink analyzing why Wendy Davis, with all her prominence and promise, went the way of every other Democrat in the post-Ann Richards era.

One amateur view is that too much of her fame and campaign were built around a single issue, a filibuster to beat back a bill that outlawed late-term abortion. Whatever your position on that question, understanding how a majority of a Texas electorate might see it is a pretty important first step in any statewide campaign.

A nonpartisan Austin insider was telling me that he never thought Davis had much of a chance, but he was disappointed that Leticia Van de Putte tied her campaign for lieutenant governor so strongly to Davis.

Van de Putte, the guy said, was the kind of pro-business Democrat who might have stood a chance, especially against a polarizing Republican like Dan Patrick. Instead, she let Davis’ growing negatives drag them both down.

If early voting is any indication, Craig Watkins is in trouble

Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins (seated right) and his Republican opponent, Susan Hawk, listen to the moderator during a debate Tuesday afternoon over the issue of domestic violence at The Dallas Women's Foundation in Dallas on Tuesday, October 7, 2014. October is National Domestic Violence Awareness month. (Lara Solt/The Dallas Morning News)

Early voting results show Dallas County voting heavily and consistently Democratic in major contested races — except that of District Attorney. In that race, it does appear that people are breaking ranks with the party.

That spells big trouble for incumbent DA Craig Watkins, a Democrat with a troubled recent history in office who had done everything in his power to drive support away from his re-election. That’s the only race in which early voters have favored Republican Susan Hawk over Watkins. Nothing is helping Watkins — not his incumbency, his strong name recognition or what should be his ability to marshal support from the Democratic Party’s already strong momentum.

In all races, early voting straight ticket ballots went 54.96 percent in favor of the Democrats and 44.5 percent in favor of Republicans.If you look at the race for County Judge, incumbent Clay Jenkins, a Democrat, won exactly the percentage reflected in the straight-ticket early voting breakdown: 54.96 percent compared with 43.46 percent for Republican Ron Natinsky. But in the Watkins-Hawk contest, 50.1 percent went to Hawk and 49.9 percent for Watkins. That’s a harbinger of defeat for Watkins.

What does this mean? Voters are sick of the kinds of abuses Watkins has engaged in. They’re sick of his impaired judgment. They’re sick of his abuse of forfeiture funds to pay hush money to people he’s had traffic accidents with. They’re sick of the entire Craig Watkins package.

Rain falls equally on just and unjust, but not on turnout

Voters at the South Service Center in Arlington lined up early to beat the rain Tuesday morning (Ron Baselice/Staff Photographer)

The rain falls equally on the rich and poor, liberal and conservative, just and unjust, Republican and Democrat. Or so we’re told.

So why does it affect voting turnout unequally? That’s a measure of faith I’ve always held, that the worse the weather, the fewer Democrats would show up. But I’ve never known exactly why that might be.

A good friend says the reason could be the relative wealth of Republicans vs. the relative poverty of Democrats, with the latter facing greater obstacles to simply transporting themselves to a polling place. That reason sounds as good as any, although it might fall a few ticks short of science.

Still, we read this assumption again this morning in Matthew Watkins’ advancer on the Dallas County vote. Toni Pippins-Poole, Dallas County’s elections administrator, lowered her estimate for turnout, based on weaker-than-normal early voting and stormy rain in the forecast. She said had been expecting about 38 to 40 percent of registered voters to cast ballots but now says 35 to 37 percent is more likely. The turnout was 37 percent in 2010, the last time there was a gubernatorial race on the ballot. And this:

A light turnout could be bad news for Democrats, who may need record-breaking numbers of new voters to be competitive statewide. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis has been working to cultivate new voters in her race against Republican Greg Abbott.

And in Dallas County, District Attorney Craig Watkins, a Democrat, faces what is expected to be a stout challenge from Republican Susan Hawk.

Increasingly in recent election cycles, Dallas County voters have tended to favor Democratic candidates.

All I can tell you for certain is that in Denton County, one of the state’s most Republican, the rain fell and wind blew with some intensity this morning. I was out in it to run some errands, and the elements didn’t seem to discriminate. It made at least one voter glad he got to the polls during early voting.

I guess we’ll see when the final tallies are in whether Democrats (or Republicans) blame the weather for tonight’s election outcomes. Or something else.

The only journalistic certainty is that a day-long rain will do some good for my yard and give this newspaper’s Michael E. Young another chance to write that all that water falling from the skies did nothing to help the lake levels.

Next steps for “Connecting Capital with Underserved Communities” in Dallas

John Martinez, far-right, president of the Regional Hispanic Contractors Association, speaks on a panel moderated by Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings Oct. 30 at Adamson High School in Dallas. (DMN Staff Photo)

If you weren’t able to attend Thursday night’s “Come Together: Connecting Capital with Underserved Communities,” you can catch up by reading the DMN’s coverage of the event here and our Sunday editorial here.

My role Thursday night, “coordinator of the questions,” was simple — but eye-opening.

When organizers of events such as this hand out cards on which people may submit questions during the program, the response generally is modest at best.

But not Thursday night. I’d hardly begun thumbing through the first sizable stack of questions for the panelists when the next stack arrived, and then another and another and another. Close to 70 questions were submitted (that means roughly 1 out of every 7 guests wrote a question!) — yet we only were able to get to two or three of the audience queries at the very tail end of the evening.

No matter how carefully you try to choreograph these type events, there’s always something you wish you had done better. In this case, we wish there had been time to get to more — or, better yet, ALL — of the questions.

Reading back over the index cards Friday morning, I was struck by what a thirst there is for a diversity of knowledge. Here is a selection of what was asked:

In 2010, less than one percent of venture funding went to black and Hispanic founders. What can be done to encourage private funding to be inclusive? What should be done? Does government have a role and, if so, what is that role?

Why not use the public libraries to provide financial literacy classes?

Where can a small business owner go to get a loan for a business he/she wants to start in southern Dallas?

Is there a plan to allow some of the vacant boarded-up homes to be given to nonprofits to be rebuilt and made available for low-income home ownership?

What are the loan acceptance/approval rates on commercial loans for whites vs minorities?

What considerations have been made regarding the Wynnewood Shopping Center and Kiest Park area?

Why is the city of Dallas providing financial assistance to apartment development rather than home ownership?

If capital requires competitive returns, what action should borrowers take to confirm returns to lenders?

How do we overcome restrictive compliance/regulation to enable freer lending for those with limited credit or collateral?

Why must you go into debt with a credit card in order to establish credit?

If I have crowdfunding as a source for a down payment, would your bank approve my business loan, if all other factors are equal?

I have been trying for 3 years to open a small BBQ restaurant in downtown but cannot get “the master lease” help I need — despite other developers being able to get help for downtown projects. Why is this?

Do know that we are exploring a variety of ways to get all the questions from Thursday night answered. And if you were at the event, we’ll email you once we figure out our next step. For now, thanks to everyone for such a dynamic evening.