DOCSLIB.ORG

Tobacco Industry Political Activity and Tobacco Control Policy Making in Texas: 1980-2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tobacco Industry Political Activity and Tobacco Control Policy Making in Texas: 1980-2002 UCSF Tobacco Control Policy Making: United States Title Tobacco Industry Political Activity and Tobacco Control Policy Making in Texas: 1980-2002 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3719s64t Authors Nixon, Meredith L., BA Glantz, Stanton A., Ph.D. Publication Date 2002-05-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Tobacco Industry Political Activity and Tobacco Control Policy Making in Texas: 1980-2002 Meredith L. Nixon, BA Stanton A. Glantz, PhD Institute for Health Policy Studies University of California, San Francisco San Francisco, CA May 2002 Supported in part by National Cancer Institute Grants CA-61021 and CA-87472 and grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund. Opinions expressed reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the sponsoring agency or the Institute for Health Policy Studies. Copyright 2002 by M. Nixon and S. Glantz. Permission is granted to reproduce this report for nonprofit purposes designed to promote the public health, so long as this report is credited. This report is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/tx/ . Reports on additional states and countries are available at http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/states.html . 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The tobacco industry has been active in Texas politics for over 25 years. It spends money on lobbying, campaign contributions, legislative events and gifts in order to gain favor with the legislature and attempt to control the agenda set for tobacco control efforts. • Political campaign contributions–reported only by Philip Morris–have remained high throughout the 1990s. Philip Morris reported contributing $556,250 to legislative, judicial and statewide candidates between 1988 and 2001. In recent years, their contributions to statewide officeholders and judicial candidates have decreased as their legislative contributions have increased. In each election cycle, 1998-1999 and 2000- 2001, Philip Morris contributed $51,000 to legislative candidates. • The 3 largest lifetime recipients of campaign contributions in the legislature were all Senators: David Cain ($8,250, D-Mesquite), Ken Armbrister ($5,500, D-Victoria), and Chris Harris ($5,500, R-Arlington). The largest recipient of tobacco money from the statewide offices was former Lt. Governor Bob Bullock who received $36,500 from the tobacco industry from 1988-1996. • The tobacco industry has also spent heavily on lobbying, although it is impossible to calculate the exact amounts. When lobbyists’ report their fees to the Texas Ethics Commission, they are only required to report a fee range for each of their clients, not the exact amount that they were paid by each client. For example, a lobbyist would select between the ranges of $0-$10,000, $10-$25,000, $25-$50,000, etc. However, given these estimates, we can determine that from 1993-2001, the tobacco industry spent between $4,660,000-$9,640,000 on lobbyists’ fees to influence the legislature. • Texas’ only statewide tobacco control laws are Senate Bill 55 (by Senator Zaffarini, D- Laredo) and House Bill 119 (by Rep. Hirschi, D-Wichita Falls), both passed during the 1997 legislative session. SB 55 is the “Texas Tobacco Law” which establishes strict penalties for retailers who sell tobacco to minors and for minors in possession of tobacco products. The tobacco industry fought heavily against the legislation. The provisions in SB 55 which impose penalties upon minors are controversial among public health advocates because they distract attention from retailers and clerks who sell tobacco to minors. HB 119 is an ingredient disclosure bill, requiring manufacturers who sell tobacco products in Texas to report their ingredients to the Texas Department of Health. • The tobacco industry uses allies like the Texas Restaurant Association, the Texas Retailers Association and the Texas Association of Business and Chambers of Commerce (TABCC) in order to shield its involvement in tobacco control issues. Restaurant owners are mobilized to oppose smoking restrictions and retailers testify against youth access and advertising restrictions. The TABCC opposed the state’s lawsuit against the tobacco industry, with coaching on the issue from tobacco industry lobbyists. • The tobacco industry has partnered with and heavily sponsored the activities of the Texas Civil Justice League (TCJL) in order to enact tort reform legislation which protects the 3 industry from prosecution. In the tort reform and products liability legislation during the 1993 and 1995 sessions, the tobacco industry and TCJL limited punitive damage awards and the rights of plaintiffs to sue the tobacco industry for smoking-related illnesses. • In 1996, then- Attorney General Dan Morales was the third Attorney General to sue the tobacco industry. He settled the case in 1998, prior to the 46 state settlement known as the Master Settlement Agreement. Texas’ suit against the industry resulted in a $17.3 billion dollar settlement. From the money that the state has received as of 2001 ($1.8 billion), only $30 million has been spent on tobacco control programs from 1999-2001. • In 1999, the state legislature deposited $200 million into a tobacco trust fund to be used for statewide tobacco control programs. However, the legislature only allowed for the interest on that money to be spent for tobacco control (about $9 million annually). The Texas Department of Health, charged with developing a tobacco control program with that small amount of money, was required to focus their efforts in East Texas. • The Texas Department of Health comprehensive tobacco control program has been very successful, however, their attempts to secure more funding and expand the program statewide have failed. In 2001, the Legislature only increased funding for the program to $12 million annually. The Centers for Disease Control’s Best Practices recommends that a state with the size and population of Texas should spend between $103 million - $180 million annually for an effective tobacco control program. • Texas’ only statewide smoking regulations, the 1975 Clean Indoor Air Act, sets up minimum standards for smoke-free public places. All of the state’s effective smoking regulations have been passed by local governments. Most of the regulations simply establish smoking and nonsmoking sections in workplaces and restaurants. • In recent years, several communities, including some surrounding the state capitol in Austin and the West Texas town of El Paso, establish 100% smoke-free public places, including workplaces and restaurants. El Paso’s smoking ordinance, passed in 2001, also establishes smoke-free bars, the first ordinance of its kind in Texas. • Beginning with the initiative of a sixth grade student, Lubbock enacted a strong clean indoor air ordinance. The tobacco industry, working with the Restaurant Association and Libertarians, opposed the ordinance. After the city council enacted the ordinance, the Libertarians forced a referendum. Tobacco control advocates mounted a vigorous defense and the ordinance was ratified by voters in May, 2002, with 64% voting for it. • While tobacco control advocates, generally working through the voluntary health agencies, are showing increasing aggressiveness and effectiveness in working at the local level, they are still unwilling to confront the tobacco industry’s allies in the state legislature, which explains their failure to force Texas to mount a strong state tobacco control program despite the millions of dollars made available by the state’s tobacco settlement. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................7 THE PARTY SYSTEM IN TEXAS ...............................................9 THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY’S INFLUENCE IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE .........11 TOBACCO POLICY SCORES..................................................13 THE TOBACCO LOBBY......................................................16 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS................................................17 Tobacco Contributions to Political Parties ...................................18 Contributions to State Legislators..........................................22 Contributions to Legislative Leaders........................................22 Contributions to Committee Members.......................................26 House State Affairs Committee ......................................27 1995 Tobacco Legislation in House State Affairs Committee ........27 1997 Tobacco Legislation in the House State Affairs Committee .....29 House Committee on Public Health...................................30 House Committee on Ways & Means.................................30 House Appropriations Committee ....................................32 Senate Committee on State Affairs...................................32 Senate Committee on Health & Human Services ........................34 Senate Committee on Finance.......................................36 Contributions to Statewide Officers ........................................37 Tobacco’s Relationship with George W. Bush ................................39 TOBACCO INDUSTRY ALLIANCES ...........................................42 Tobacco and the Texas Restaurant Association ...............................42 Other Third Party Alliances ...............................................45 Tobacco and the Media ..................................................46 TORT REFORM AND THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY ...............................47
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 9 Quiz
    Name: ___________________________________ Date: ______________ 1. The diffusion of authority and power throughout several entities in the executive branch and the bureaucracy is called A) the split executive B) the bureaucratic institution C) the plural executive D) platform diffusion 2. A government organization that implements laws and provides services to individuals is the A) executive branch B) legislative branch C) judicial branch D) bureaucracy 3. What is the ratio of bureaucrats to Texans? A) 1 bureaucrat for every 1,500 Texas residents B) 1 bureaucrat for every 3,500 Texas residents C) 1 bureaucrat for every 4,000 Texas residents D) 1 bureaucrat for every 10,000 Texas residents 4. The execution by the bureaucracy of laws and decisions made by the legislative, executive, or judicial branch, is referred to as A) implementation B) diffusion C) execution of law D) rules 5. How does the size of the Texas bureaucracy compare to other states? A) smaller than most other states B) larger than most other states C) about the same D) Texas does not have a bureaucracy 6. Standards that are established for the function and management of industry, business, individuals, and other parts of government, are called A) regulations B) licensing C) business laws D) bureaucratic law 7. What is the authorization process that gives a company, an individual, or an organization permission to carry out a specific task? A) regulations B) licensing C) business laws D) bureaucratic law 8. The carrying out of rules by an agency or commission within the bureaucracy, is called A) implementation B) rule-making C) licensing D) enforcement 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Trade Marks Journal No: 1842 , 26/03/2018 Class 31 1873621 15
    Trade Marks Journal No: 1842 , 26/03/2018 Class 31 1873621 15/10/2009 VANTAGE ORGANIC FOOD PVT. LTD 13/12-A, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR-302004 RAJASTHAN NO SPECIFY A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956. Address for service in India/Agents address: PRATEEK KASLIWAL C-230, GYAN MARG, TILAK NAGAR, JAIPUR 302004 Used Since :01/05/2005 AHMEDABAD AGRICULTURAL, HORTICULTURAL AND FORESTRY PRODUCTS AND GRAIN NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER CLASSES; LIVE ANIMALS; FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES; SEEDS, NATURAL PLANTS AND FLOWERS; FOODSTUFFS FOR ANIMALS, MALT. 5876 Trade Marks Journal No: 1842 , 26/03/2018 Class 31 UTROSTRONG 1936711 16/03/2010 AMIT KUMAR trading as ;M/S. LAKSHYA MEDICAL AGENCY DELHI ROAD RAMPUR MANIHARAN TEH RAMPUR MANI DISTT SAHARANPUR-247001. MARKETING AND TRADING Address for service in India/Attorney address: VINAY MARWAH ADV 292 MODEL TOWN, AMBALA CITY 134003 Used Since :21/01/2010 DELHI FEED SUPPLIMENTS;PROTEINS FOR VETRINARY PURPOSE;POULTRY FEED SUPPLIMENTS 5877 Trade Marks Journal No: 1842 , 26/03/2018 Class 31 1980030 15/06/2010 KRISHNA CHAURASIA A - 198, GUNJRAWALAN TOWN, PART - 1, DELHI - 110009. MANUFACTURER TRADERS AND SERVICES PROVIDER AN INDIAN NATIONAL Address for service in India/Agents address: THE ACME COMPANY B-41, NIZAMUDDIN EAST, NEW DELHI - 110013. Used Since :13/04/2002 DELHI BETAL SPICES (PAN MASALA), SCENTED & SWEET MOUTH FRESHNERS GOODS FALLING IN CLASS 31. 5878 Trade Marks Journal No: 1842 , 26/03/2018 Class 31 2126091 06/04/2011 INDIAN HERBS SPECIALITIES PRIVATE LIMITED D-21 SHOP NO 2, ACHARYA NIKETAN MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110091 MANUFACTURER AND MERCHANT Address for service in India/Attorney address: KRISHNAMURTHY & CO.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Population Survey, July 2018: Tobacco Use Supplement File That Becomes Available After the File Is Released
    CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY, July 2018 Tobacco Use Supplement FILE Version 2, Revised September 2020 TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION CPS—18 This file documentation consists of the following materials: Attachment 1 Abstract Attachment 2 Overview - Current Population Survey Attachment 3a Overview – July 2018 Tobacco Use Supplement Attachment 3b Overview-Tobacco Use Supplement NCI Data Harmonization Project Attachment 4 Glossary Attachment 5 How to Use the Record Layout Attachment 6 Basic CPS Record Layout Attachment 7 Current Population Survey, July 2018 Tobacco Use Supplement Record Layout Attachment 8 Current Population Survey, July 2018 Tobacco Use Supplement Questionnaire Attachment 9 Industry Classification Codes Attachment 10 Occupation Classification Codes Attachment 11 Specific Metropolitan Identifiers Attachment 12 Topcoding of Usual Hourly Earnings Attachment 13 Tallies of Unweighted Counts Attachment 14 Countries and Areas of the World Attachment 15 Allocation Flags Attachment 16 Source and Accuracy of the July 2018 Tobacco Use Supplement Data Attachment 17 User Notes NOTE Questions about accompanying documentation should be directed to Center for New Media and Promotions Division, Promotions Branch, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233. Phone: (301) 763-4400. Questions about the CD-ROM should be directed to The Customer Service Center, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233. Phone: (301) 763-INFO (4636). Questions about the design, data collection, and CPS-specific subject matter should be directed to Tim Marshall, Demographic Surveys Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233. Phone: (301) 763-3806. Questions about the TUS subject matter should be directed to the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Behavior Research Program at [email protected] ABSTRACT The National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 112 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 112 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 158 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012 No. 54 House of Representatives The House met at 2 p.m. and was THE JOURNAL I look forward to these joint collabo- called to order by the Speaker pro tem- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rations with the Savannah River Na- pore (Mr. HARRIS). Chair has examined the Journal of the tional Laboratory, and I am confident their success will be of great benefit to f last day’s proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof. South Carolina and our Nation. In conclusion, God bless our troops, DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour- and we will never forget September the PRO TEMPORE nal stands approved. 11th in the global war on terrorism. The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- f Rest in peace, Medal of Honor recipi- fore the House the following commu- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ent Army Master Sergeant John F. nication from the Speaker: The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the Baker, Jr., of Columbia, South Caro- WASHINGTON, DC, gentleman from Illinois (Mr. lina, and Rock Island, Illinois, for his April 16, 2012. KINZINGER) come forward and lead the heroic service in Vietnam, who was I hereby appoint the Honorable ANDY HAR- House in the Pledge of Allegiance. buried at Arlington National Cemetery RIS to act as Speaker pro tempore on this Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois led the today.
    [Show full text]
  • Concentrations of Nicotine, Nitrosamines, and Humectants in Legal and Illegal Cigarettes in Mexico
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Faculty Publications Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior 10-3-2018 Concentrations of Nicotine, Nitrosamines, and Humectants in Legal and Illegal Cigarettes in Mexico Ariela Braverman-Bronstein James F. Thrasher Luz Myriam Reynales-Shigematsu Mauricio Hernández-Ávila Tonatiuh Barrientos Gutierrez Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/ sph_health_promotion_education_behavior_facpub Part of the Public Health Education and Promotion Commons Braverman-Bronstein et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2018) 15:50 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-018-0257-3 RESEARCH Open Access Concentrations of nicotine, nitrosamines, and humectants in legal and illegal cigarettes in Mexico Ariela Braverman-Bronstein1, James F Thrasher2, Luz Myriam Reynales-Shigematsu1, Mauricio Hernández-Ávila3 and Tonatiuh Barrientos-Gutierrez1* Abstract Background: Article 10 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states the need for industry disclosure of tobacco contents and emissions. Currently, the profiles of key tobacco compounds in legal and illegal cigarettes are largely unknown. We aimed to analyze and compare concentrations of nicotine, nitrosamines, and humectants in legal and illegal cigarettes collected from a representative sample of smokers. Methods: Participants of the International Tobacco Control cohort provided a cigarette pack of the brand they smoked during the 2014 wave. Brands were classified as legal or illegal according to the Mexican legislation. Nicotine, nitrosamines, glycerol, propylene glycol, and pH were quantified in seven randomly selected packs of each brand. All analyses were done blinded to legality status. Average concentrations per brand and global averages for legal and illegal brands were calculated. Comparisons between legal and illegal brands were conducted using t tests.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Public Schools Listing, 2001-2002
    TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 2001 - 2002 *As provided by the State Property Tax Files FY00 2000-2001 Appraised* Tax Rates* County, District, Mailing Address, Co.-Dist. Sch. Superintendents-County, Grades Enroll- Valuation Mainte- Region, School Telephone No. No. No. District, Principals Taught ment (Thousands) nance Bond 001 ANDERSON 001 CAYUGA ISD 07 P O BOX 427 001-902 E G SCARBOROUGH JR 638 $180,844 .150 .000 CAYUGA 75832-0427 PHONE - (903) 928-2102 FAX - (903) 928-2646 REGULAR INSTRUCTIONAL CAYUGA H S (903) 928-2294 001 DANIEL SHEAD 9-12 199 CAYUGA MIDDLE (903) 928-2699 041 SHERRI MCINNIS 6-8 154 CAYUGA EL (903) 928-2295 103 DR RICK WEBB EE-5 285 ELKHART ISD 07 RT 1 BOX 1001 001-903 JOHNNIE EUGENE KEELING 1148 $114,122 .140 .005 ELKHART 75839-9701 PHONE - (903) 764-2952 FAX - (903) 764-2466 REGULAR INSTRUCTIONAL ELKHART H S (903) 764-5161 001 DR EDWARD Q LYMAN 9-12 328 ELTON DEWAYNE WALLACE JR ELKHART MIDDLE (903) 764-2459 041 JACKY CHERRY 6-8 269 ELKHART EL (903) 764-2979 101 MIKE MOON EE-5 551 FRANKSTON ISD 07 P O BOX 428 001-904 RICK LARKIN 788 $131,331 .145 .009 FRANKSTON 75763-0428 PHONE - (903) 876-2556 ext:222 FAX - (903) 876-4558 REGULAR INSTRUCTIONAL FRANKSTON H S (903) 876-2215 001 DANNY MILLER 9-12 248 FRANKSTON MIDDLE (903) 876-2215 041 C J O’NEAL 6-8 181 FRANKSTON EL (903) 876-2214 102 PEGGY HOOD PK-5 359 NECHES ISD 07 P O BOX 310 001-906 GARY G HOLCOMB 318 $47,823 .134 .000 NECHES 75779-0310 PHONE - (903) 584-3311 FAX - (903) 584-3686 REGULAR INSTRUCTIONAL NECHES H S (903) 584-3443 002 JOE ELLIS 7-12 149 NECHES EL (903) 584-3401
    [Show full text]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of TEXAS Bill
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Bill Misc. Docket No. 97- ORDER AND OPINION DENYING REQUEST UNDER OPEN RECORDS ACT PER CURIAM The Court has received a request under the Texas Open Records Act, TEx. Gov'T CODE §§ 552.001-.353, from Andrew Wheat with Texans for Public Justice, for "any outgoing and incoming telecommunications records (office/cellular/mobile and fax phones) for Texas Supreme Court Justices and their staffs for the period covering Aug. 30, 1996 to Apri12, 1997." The Court's usual practice when it receives a request under the Open Records Act is to instruct the Clerk to deny the request by letter on the grounds that the Legislature has expressly excluded the judiciary from the Act. The Act requires a "governmental body" to release "public information" on request, id. § 552.221(a), but to protect the independence of the judiciary the Act plainly states, "`Governmental body' . does not include the judiciary", id. § 552.003(1)(B). The exclusion of the judiciary simply could not be plainer, as every Attorney General has confirmed since the Act was passed twenty-four years ago. We must alter our usual practice on this occasion because of Attorney General Dan Morales' recent issuance of Open Records Decision No. 657 (July 24, 1997). For the first time an Attorney General has introduced confusion and uncertainty into the construction of a clear statute. At issue are not merely a few telephone records of the Supreme Court, but all records of all Texas judges and courts. We write to explain why ORD-657 is incorrect.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to the Texas Women's HALL of FAME 2014 PROGRAM
    GCW_HOF_program_042514.indd 1 4/28/14 9:20 AM TEXAS Women’s hall of fAME Welcome to The Texas Women’s HALL OF FAME 2014 PROGRAM Welcome Carmen Pagan, Governor’s Commission for Women Chair Invocation Reverend Coby Shorter Presentation The Anita Thigpen Perry School of Nursing at Texas Tech University Keynote Address Governor Rick Perry Induction 2014 Texas Women’s Hall of Fame Honorees Closing 3 Texas Governor‘s Commission for Women GCW_HOF_program_042514.indd 2-3 4/28/14 9:20 AM TEXAS Women’s hall of fAME TEXAS Women’s hall of fAME The Texas Women’s HALL OF FAME AWARDS The Governor’s Commission for Women established the Texas Women’s Hall of Fame in 1984 to honor the remarkable achievements of Texas women while sharing their stories of great determination and innovation. The biennial awards highlight Texas women who have made significant contributions, often despite great odds. Nominations are submitted from across the state and reviewed by a panel of judges. Past honorees include first ladies, Olympic athletes and astronauts. The Texas Women’s HALL OF FAME 2014 Inductees The History of Our HALL OF FAME EXHIBIT In 2003, the Governor’s Commission for Women established a permanent exhibit for the Texas Women’s Hall of Fame on the campus of Texas Woman’s University in Denton, Texas. The exhibit features the biographies, photographs and video interviews of more than 100 notable women who have been chosen to represent the very best from our state. The exhibit is free of charge, and it is open to the public Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Uncovering Texas Politics in the 21St Century
    first edition uncovering texas politics st in the 21 century Eric Lopez Marcus Stadelmann Robert E. Sterken Jr. Uncovering Texas Politics in the 21st Century Uncovering Texas Politics in the 21st Century Eric Lopez Marcus Stadelmann Robert E. Sterken Jr. The University of Texas at Tyler PRESS Tyler, Texas The University of Texas at Tyler Michael Tidwell, President Amir Mirmiran, Provost Neil Gray, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences UT Tyler Press Publisher: Lucas Roebuck, Vice President for Marketing Production Supervisor: Olivia Paek, Agency Director Content Coordination: Colleen Swain, Associate Provost for Undergraduate and Online Education Author Liaison: Ashley Bill, Executive Director of Academic Success Editorial Support: Emily Battle, Senior Editorial Specialist Design: Matt Snyder © 2020 The University of Texas at Tyler. All rights reserved. This book may be reproduced in its PDF electronic form for use in an accredited Texas educational institution with permission from the publisher. For permission, visit www.uttyler.edu/press. Use of chapters, sections or other portions of this book for educational purposes must include this copyright statement. All other reproduction of any part of this book, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as expressly permitted by applicable copyright statute or in writing by the publisher, is prohibited. Graphics and images appearing in this book are copyrighted by their respective owners as indicated in captions and used with permission, under fair use laws, or under open source license. ISBN-13 978-1-7333299-2-7 1.1 UT Tyler Press 3900 University Blvd.
    [Show full text]
  • OCTOBER TERM 1994 Reference Index Contents
    jnl94$ind1Ð04-04-96 12:34:32 JNLINDPGT MILES OCTOBER TERM 1994 Reference Index Contents: Page Statistics ....................................................................................... II General .......................................................................................... III Appeals ......................................................................................... III Arguments ................................................................................... III Attorneys ...................................................................................... III Briefs ............................................................................................. IV Certiorari ..................................................................................... IV Costs .............................................................................................. V Judgments and Opinions ........................................................... V Original Cases ............................................................................. V Records ......................................................................................... VI Rehearings ................................................................................... VI Rules ............................................................................................. VI Stays .............................................................................................. VI Conclusion ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 07-0931 City of Dallas V. Greg Abbott
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 07-0931 444444444444 CITY OF DALLAS, PETITIONER, v. GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Argued October 15, 2008 JUSTICE WAINWRIGHT, joined by JUSTICE JOHNSON, dissenting. The introductory section of the Public Information Act (PIA) announces the policy of the State of Texas on the peoples’ right of access to public information. Under the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government that adheres to the principle that government is the servant and not the master of the people, it is the policy of this state that each person is entitled, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 552.001. This laudable objective of the PIA, to ensure transparency in public affairs, does not require that all public information be routinely disclosed. Sensibly, some data defined as public information may be withheld under the statute’s terms, but the PIA requires that exclusions from disclosure be timely raised with the Office of the Attorney General. Id. §§ 552.101, .301. A public entity has ten business days to request the Attorney General’s opinion if it desires to withhold public information. Id. § 552.301. If the governmental body fails to meet this statutory deadline, the standard for withholding the public information from disclosure rises from merely “confidential” to the governmental entity having to establish a “compelling reason” for nondisclosure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dictionary Legend
    THE DICTIONARY The following list is a compilation of words and phrases that have been taken from a variety of sources that are utilized in the research and following of Street Gangs and Security Threat Groups. The information that is contained here is the most accurate and current that is presently available. If you are a recipient of this book, you are asked to review it and comment on its usefulness. If you have something that you feel should be included, please submit it so it may be added to future updates. Please note: the information here is to be used as an aid in the interpretation of Street Gangs and Security Threat Groups communication. Words and meanings change constantly. Compiled by the Woodman State Jail, Security Threat Group Office, and from information obtained from, but not limited to, the following: a) Texas Attorney General conference, October 1999 and 2003 b) Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Security Threat Group Officers c) California Department of Corrections d) Sacramento Intelligence Unit LEGEND: BOLD TYPE: Term or Phrase being used (Parenthesis): Used to show the possible origin of the term Meaning: Possible interpretation of the term PLEASE USE EXTREME CARE AND CAUTION IN THE DISPLAY AND USE OF THIS BOOK. DO NOT LEAVE IT WHERE IT CAN BE LOCATED, ACCESSED OR UTILIZED BY ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON. Revised: 25 August 2004 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS A: Pages 3-9 O: Pages 100-104 B: Pages 10-22 P: Pages 104-114 C: Pages 22-40 Q: Pages 114-115 D: Pages 40-46 R: Pages 115-122 E: Pages 46-51 S: Pages 122-136 F: Pages 51-58 T: Pages 136-146 G: Pages 58-64 U: Pages 146-148 H: Pages 64-70 V: Pages 148-150 I: Pages 70-73 W: Pages 150-155 J: Pages 73-76 X: Page 155 K: Pages 76-80 Y: Pages 155-156 L: Pages 80-87 Z: Page 157 M: Pages 87-96 #s: Pages 157-168 N: Pages 96-100 COMMENTS: When this “Dictionary” was first started, it was done primarily as an aid for the Security Threat Group Officers in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ).
    [Show full text]