We must protect Due Process and our Constitutional Liberties.

The Texas Public Information Act reflects an understanding of the people's right to know and the importance of due process. What process is due to each of us? The answer: fair notice and the opportunity to be heard.  Texas law clearly states, and I quote: 

 "The People, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

The office of Attorney General has the massive power to decide what falls within the people’s right to know. This includes knowledge of how are public schools are run. 

The current Attorney General has issued opinions which prevent disclosure of school district use of force policies. 15 school districts have voluntarily given out the info the Attorney General allows others to keep secret.

Austin ISD campus police "drew guns on juveniles 8 times in the last four years. They used pepper spray 26 times, tasers 4 times and police dogs once. They controlled juveniles with batons or other physical force 258 times. They made 8,000 arrests in the same time period."    The Texas Tribune also reported on Houston and El Paso use of force. Austin ISD Police Chief explained data maintenance as a “best practice” per Texas
Police Chiefs Association Foundation.  And, Austin HISD rewrote their manual, per recommendations, so publication would result in no security threat.

The public has a right to know what training, if any, is required on use of weapons against children in the schools or if there any rules. Disclosure promotes self examination, record keeping and objective outsiders’ ability to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the policies and practices. Disclosure promotes better policies and practices. The law presumes it is the people’s right to know.

Our rights to information are constantly threatened.  The Texas Supreme Court just this year wrongly ruled that government can delay responding to open records requests by seeking continual clarifications. Each time the government seeks clarification, the time limits start fresh. The courts will have to decide if the government acted in good faith.

It is up to the Attorney General to educate all levels of government and track repeated requests for patterns of delay.  This will discourage unneeded or unknowledgeable requests for clarification and delaying tactics. And, tracking will give the courts evidence where there is  bad faith delaying. As of December 2009, the AG’s office has not been tracking, saying via spokesman:  "there are certain rulings for information that's not only similar but nearly identical. To the extent there's a pattern, we don't really keep numbers or statistics." 

Of equal importance to the rights of the public to know and for due process under the Constitution are the safeguards for notice in holding Open Meetings.

We the people are entitled to fair notice of meetings. The Texas Government Code requires the advertisement of an agenda including date, hour, place and subject of each meeting. Our legislature requires posting in a place readily accessible to the general public at least 72 hours in advance. Only subjects on the agenda may be discussed, deliberated or debated. Only with proper notice can the public decide whether they want to attend.

 The Texas Municipal League openly seeks to change notice and advertising requirements so smaller cities could just use electronic posting.  This saves them money at the expense of our constitutional rights. The massive problem this creates should be obvious. Many citizens would never receive the notice! The proposals ignore the realities of life and the traditional effective means of reaching the most citizens possible. We must oppose such proposals.

And there's been another serious threat. Recently, the Attorney General acted appropriately in defending open meetings law against public officials' claims that they have a First Amendment right to meet, even as a quorum of a public body, without being subject to the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.

As the Beaumont Enterprise opined: "The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech applied to citizens, not cities. And if a citizen becomes an elected official, his rights to speak out never supersede those of other voters... As Abbott put it in his motion, the cities are 'creatures of the state' that 'may not assert constitutional claims against the state.' "  The Enterprise rightly complained of the waste of taxpayer dollars in the lawsuit by the cities.

The Constitutional lesson preached by the Attorney General and learned from this major threat to our liberties includes this key proposition: our individual rights are yours and mine to assert. The Texas state government does not have the power to assert your and my rights of due process. The Supreme Court has long made that clear. The Attorney general of a State doesn’t assert our individual rights; he cant assert them for you, or for me.

Most people agree that Congress just passed an imperfect health care bill for example. The mandates offend many people. Does the Attorney General have power to assert our individual liberties to attack? No, he will lose on that legal theory, as his own briefing proves. He has also sued for violation of the Commerce clause. But that is a legal loser, too, because Congress cleverly made the appropriate legal findings to justify the law as affecting commerce. Long time Supreme Court precedent will back Congress. As long as there’s a rational basis, the law will be upheld. Congress piled on the evidence that being uninsured costs the rest of Americans dearly, and we all pay more for health care as a result. Families with insurance pay an average of $1000 more in premiums due to the uninsured.

In the emergency medical treatment  law known as EMTALA,  passed many years ago, Congress mandated that emergency rooms and ambulances provided needed care to everyone, whether insured or not. We all pay dearly for that law, which remains on the books to this day.

And Congress has issued mandates to folks other than health care providers, too. When the Heart of Atlanta motel refused to rent rooms to African Americans in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the motel said it was their right to refuse service. It was Justice Tom Clark of Texas who wrote for the Supreme Court that Congress could indeed mandate businesses serve African Americans, in a historic Supreme Court decision.

If the Attorney General truly had the power to sue over the claimed unfairness to Texans, he should be suing over tremendous unfairness as our Texas federal gas tax dollars are given away to the rest of the country. In the 2005 Transportation bill, famous for an Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” we Texans received only 35 dollars per person while Alaska received $1500. Mr. Abbott never sued for that unfairness.

This current AG health care lawsuit is a legal loser. It may or may not be good politics, but from a legal standpoint, it is a piece of litigation filed for show.  I’ve practiced law for thirty years. I don’t believe in lawsuits for show. That is frivolous litigation and should be discouraged. If the Attorney General doesn’t like what the elected Congress has done, he can vote against his Representatives. Write a letter to the editor.  Speak your mind at an open meeting. But don’t file a lawsuit Mr. Attorney General, when, as a lawyer, you know it is a legal loser.

Add the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) litigation to the list of lawsuits filed by the Texas Attorney General containing merit less claims.  In lawsuits attacking federal health care reform and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott drew criticism for loser litigation. [i] The Texas Attorney General's February 2010 legal challenge complaining of the EPA's findings of endangerment begins with the claims of an "acclaimed record" of working to enforce environmental laws and that "Texas has aggressively protected air quality."[ii]

After seven long years of the Texas Attorney General's tenure, Texas is number one in: air pollution emissions, amount of volatile organic compounds released into the air, amount of toxic chemicals released into water, amount of recognized cancer-causing carcinogens released into air, and amount of carbon dioxide emissions.[iii]

The Attorney General further claims in his legal pleadings to have teamed "in a successful enforcement effort" against the mining and refining company ASARCO.  The Attorney General even claimed "as a result, ASARCO will spend $1.8 billion remediating 80 hazardous waste sites in 19 states...$52 million was allocated to Texas to fund the environmental remediation of a lead smelter in El Paso."[iv]

In truth, the Texas Attorney General was unsuccessful in the litigation in achieving a fair result for Texas, El Paso and its citizens.  State Senator Elliot Shapleigh specifically asked the Attorney General to renegotiate the settlement, on April 7, 2009, since the $52 million was inadequate to cover $250 million minimum of cleanup including an arsenic plume in groundwater of 233 million cubic feet, following a century of ASARCO deposited lead and arsenic on the Rio Grande.[v]  State Sen. Shapleigh gave specific notice of vast inadequacies in the $52 million settlement negotiated by the Bush Administration, for which the Texas Attorney General now proudly takes credit as his "success" in his pleadings to the EPA.  The Texas Attorney General, in April 2009, was asked to renegotiate after $6 billion additional funds became available in ASARCO's estate, which could fund the minimum $250 million/El Paso remediation needs.

Texas does not have an acclaimed record of air quality and has not aggressively protected air quality.  And the Texas Attorney General's refusal to reconsider his position on the inadequate so-called "successful" ASARCO case robbed Texas of the opportunity to correct the massive water and air problems created by a century of pollution.

"More than any other state in America, almost twenty-four million Texans now live with the highest levels of volatile organic compounds, toxic chemicals in our water, and carcinogens and carbon dioxide in our air.  In terms of ozone pollution, Houston and Dallas are now the fourth and seventh worst cities in the United States, respectively.  If Texas were a nation it would rank seventh in the world in total carbon dioxide emissions...the Texas commission [on Environmental Quality] has a history of disregarding scientific opinion on permits." [vi]

And, the Environmental Integrity Project report released in March 2010 revealed that five coal fired Texas power plants are among the nations top 10 emitters of mercury, with 90 percent of emissions reducible with proven technology, little or no downtime, and capital cost of $1 to $3 per megawatt hour of capacity.[vii]

For over a century the ASARCO El Paso Smelter fouled Mexico and the United States with thousands of tons of lead, arsenic and sulfur.  Faced with $11 billion in national cleanup claims, ASARCO filed bankruptcy in 2005, then sought air pollution permits renewal.  Over massive objections, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) voted to approve air permit renewal, engendering appeals and controversy.  When EPA disputed TCEQ's argument "grandfathering" the permits, forcing ASARCO to start anew, ASARCO gave up, voiding its permits.

The Attorney General of Texas is wrong to file a legal pleading at taxpayer expense claiming the TCEQ's $52 million remediation plan, part of the Bush Administration's negotiated settlement, as a "success".

###

During her 30 year legal career, Barbara Ann has represented retirees, life-saving doctors, blood banks, children burned by lighters, families of murder victims, unfairly treated businesses: a wide variety of persons entitled to protection. Barbara Ann graduated with honors from the University of Houston and the University Of Texas School of Law.   She was honored as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1988 and for the past 17 years she has been listed in "Best Lawyers in America".

Prior to 2006, she was a partner at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in Houston, where she served as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Section.  She was the first woman at Vinson & Elkins to have children as an associate and later attain partnership.  Texas has never had a woman Attorney General.

Media Contact:

Katie Floyd: 713-357-3360(office)

katie.floyd@radnofsky.com

[i] Houston Chronicle, "Sore losers: Health care lawsuits are a misguided continuation of partisan fight." March 23, 2010.  Barbara Ann Radnofsky campaign press release, As Abbott Sues, Texans Suffer. March 23, 2010. Lone Star Project, Texas Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott: Partisanship and Hypocrisy Define Texas Republican Official (on website as of March 25, 2010).

[ii] EPA Docket No, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171.

[iii] Texas On the Brink: How Texas Ranks Among the 50 States.  Senator Eliot Shapleigh, January 2009.

[iv] EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171

[v] Press Release Texas State Sen. Shapleigh Feb. 27 2009.

[vi] Getting Out of Grover's Tub by Senator Eliot Shapleigh, 2009 P. 31-34.

[vii] Houston Chronicle, March 20, 2010.

Attorney General Greg Abbott, suing to block federal insurance requirements, embraces mandating certain parents to purchase health insurance in Texas.  Federal government's funding requirements appear to motivate the Attorney General's longstanding compliance with laws requiring child support obligated parents to also purchase health insurance.

Attorney General Abbott's spokesman conceded a history of compliance with the federal government's requirement that certain parents provide health care coverage or payments .[i]

In addition to compliance with federal requirements, the Attorney General suggested broader legislation for children's medical care, envisioning in January 2008 "a private insurance company would contract with the state to cover a pool of children, a court could order parents to buy the private insurance based on their ability to pay, the court could order the insurance premiums withheld from a parent's paycheck, and parents who provide proof of insurance could opt out." [ii]

The Attorney General's proposal, deemed AbbottCare by Democratic nominee for Texas Attorney General Barbara Ann Radnofsky, was the source of a 2009 law, which mandated the Office of the Attorney General to "develop and implement a statewide program to address the health care needs of children in Title IV-D cases for whom health insurance is not available to either parent at reasonable cost."[iii]

The Bill analysis reflects the goal of the 2009 Texas law: "to ensure that children in the child support system are covered by health insurance. Federal law requires parents in the child support system to provide health coverage for their children."[iv]

Why would the Texas Attorney General embrace federal mandates to require individuals to purchase health insurance?  Money. Federal money. The Office of Attorney General explained "the imperative" to produce more orders for medical support in the Request for Proposal for services for the Texas Child Support Enforcement System. Buried at page 151 under section 4.4.8.8 of  T2 TXCSES is the following language:"...beginning FFY 2009, the establishment of medical support will be one of the performance metrics by which the Office of Attorney General will be measured to garner incentive funds. Therefore, it will be imperative to increase the percentage of cases with a medical support order."

Radnofsky: "AbbottCare is inconsistent with Mr. Abbott's lawsuit against the federal health care bill.  I call on Mr. Abbott to withdraw the lawsuit." [v]

###

During her 30 year legal career, Barbara Ann has represented retirees, life-saving doctors, blood banks, children burned by lighters, families of murder victims, unfairly treated businesses: a wide variety of persons entitled to protection. Barbara Ann graduated with honors from the University of Houston and the University Of Texas School of Law.   She was honored as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1988 and for the past 17 years she has been listed in "Best Lawyers in America".

Prior to 2006, she was a partner at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in Houston, where she served as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Section.  She was the first woman at Vinson & Elkins to have children as an associate and later attain partnership.  Texas has never had a woman Attorney General. 

Media Contact:

Katie Floyd: 713-357-3360 (office);  713-858-9391 (cell)

katie.floyd@radnofsky.com

Barbara Ann Press Release, March 23, 2010.  As Abbott Sues, Texans Suffer.

[i] Texas Tribune. Tribblog, "Does Texas Already Mandate Health Insurance".  March 23, 2010 quoting Jerry Strickland, Abbott's Communication Director.

[ii] Austin American Statesman. January 10, 2008. "Attorney General Proposes Health Insurance Program for Kids in Child Support System."  Dallas Morning News. January 10, 2008.  "Texas Attorney General Proposes Children's Health Insurance Program".

[iii] 2009 Texas Senate Bill 66, "Relating to health care coverage for children in Title IV-D cases," was passed and signed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry in 2009 as part of SB 865.

[iv] The Bill analysis continues to explain the reason for new mandate to purchase insurance: If parents lacked coverage, the judge would typically order the non-custodial parent to pay "cash-medical" support to the custodial parent to pay for health care "Unfortunately, this does not always lead to actual coverage... SB 66 establishes an insurance pool for certain children in Title IV-D cases, authorizes the courts to ensure that eligible children have health coverage by ordering that the child be rolled in the pool and requiring the obligor to pay premium costs at a reasonable cost." Senate Research Center.  Bill Analysis.  March 23, 2009.

[v] The legislation affecting "Title IV-D" cases goes so far as to amend our Texas Family Code, effective June 19, 2009 to develop a child health care program. Section 154.1826 provides, in section (b): "In consultation with the Texas Department of Insurance, the Health and Human Services Commission, and representatives of the insurance industry in this state, the Title IV-D agency (the Office of Attorney General) shall develop and implement a statewide program to address the health care needs of children in Title IV-D cases for whom health insurance is not available to either parent at reasonable cost.. . (G) a health benefit plan issuer that participates in the program may not deny health care coverage under the program to eligible children because of preexisting conditions or chronic illnesses... " Texas Family Code.

Attorney General Abbott today sued to block 4.3 million Texans from receiving health care insurance[i].  Barbara Ann Radnofsky, 2010 Democratic nominee for Texas Attorney General, responded to Attorney General Abbott's partisan pursuit of a legal loser lawsuit.

Radnofsky: "Attorney General Abbott is wasting Texas taxpayer dollars on a legal loser lawsuit for his own political, partisan, and personal gain.  His grandstanding does nothing to protect the people of Texas. His aim is to protect insurance companies.   He is promoting Greg Abbott and fundraising for himself[ii] and his party[iii].

"Mr. Abbott's attack on the health care bill is an absolute legal loser, wasting Texas' taxpayer dollars.  Congress has the power to regulate commercial activity and tax.  As the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly held, the business of insurance falls within the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court wrote:

'Perhaps no modern commercial enterprise directly affects so many persons in all walks of life as does the insurance business.  Insurance touches the home, the family, and the occupation or business of almost every person in the United States.' [iv]"

The Bill, within 6 months, bars insurers from: denying people coverage when they get sick, denying coverage to children with pre existing conditions, imposing lifetime caps on coverage, and refusing to allow children under 26 to stay on their parents' policies. Attorney General Abbott's regulatory inaction in Texas dovetails with his insurance protective action today.

Attorney General Abbott has done nothing to stop the anti-competitive, profiteering insurance company practices in Texas leading to some of the highest insurance rates in the country.
The Attorney General's lawsuit fails to address the properly conducted Congressional findings of the importance of health care reform, increasing the share of insureds and financial security in this country. The cost of providing uncompensated care and the impact on increasing insurance rates as a result were the subject of Congressional findings.  Congressional regulation/mandate clearly involves activity within interstate commerce and was exercised for national welfare.  Moreover, if the Texas Attorney General had standing to assert our individual rights as he claims, he should have fought against unfair distribution of our federal highway tax dollars. We Texans have been and remain net donors to the other states.  (Example: The 2005 $286.4 billion transportation bill, containing the bridge to nowhere, guaranteed Alaskans received about $1500 per capita in highway benefits, while Texans received a meager $36 per capita. Texas was a net donor to the rest of the country that year of 8.7 cents of every dollar.)

Radnofsky: "Attorney General Abbott has a history of wasting Texas taxpayer dollars on partisan, political lawsuits to try to advance his own career. He is in cahoots with Republicans who are determined to see health insurance reform fail."

This is not Mr. Abbott's first loser lawsuit.  Attorney General Abbott turned his back on the disabled when he wrongly claimed that the Americans with Disabilities Act didn't apply to state buildings in Texas.  In the case of Miller v Texas Tech, Attorney General Abbott wasted taxpayer dollars on this loser of an issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Acceptance of federal funds clearly waived Texas 11th Amendment immunity under express conditions of federal law.

###

During her 30 year legal career, Barbara Ann has represented retirees, life-saving doctors, blood banks, children burned by lighters, families of murder victims, unfairly treated businesses: a wide variety of persons entitled to protection. Barbara Ann graduated with honors from the University of Houston and the University Of Texas School of Law.   She was honored as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1988 and for the past 17 years she has been listed in "Best Lawyers in America".

Prior to 2006, she was a partner at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in Houston, where she served as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Section.  She was the first woman at Vinson & Elkins to have children as an associate and later attain partnership.  Texas has never had a woman Attorney General. 

Media Contact:

Katie Floyd: 713-357-3360(office)

katie.floyd@radnofsky.com

[i] Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) letter to Congress, March 17, 2010.  "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that 92 percent of non-elderly Americans will gain coverage by 2019 under this bill's provisions, meaning 4.3 million to 4.4 million of Texas' current 6.1 million uninsured would gain good affordable coverage."

[ii] Attorney General Greg Abbott fundraising letter.  March 3, 2010.  "This letter reflects our effort to fight the federal government's rapid expansion.  Will you help us fight back?"

[iii] Republican Party of Texas fundraising letter from Chairman Cathie Adams.  "...this is not the end of the fight.  It is not even the beginning of the end of the fight.  It is the end of the beginning.  And we must prevail..... Attorney General Greg Abbott is already on the case and Texas will be party to a 10-state lawsuit that will challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare before the ink on the president's signature is even dry. ..."

[iv] U.S. v Southeastern Underwriters Associations. 322 U.S. 533 (1944).

Houston, Texas.  March 15, 2010. Democratic nominee for Texas Attorney General Barbara Ann Radnofsky called on incumbent Attorney General Greg Abbott to investigate the true numbers behind insurance rate hikes. Texas consumers will be forced to endure another homeowners rate increase by State Farm Insurance in May 2010, according to media reports.  The insurance giant will be raising the homeowners rate by 4.5% statewide in May, just eight months after an 8.8% increase.

In response to the recent news that insurance rates will jump again, Radnofsky responded:

"The Attorney General's job is to protect us from profiteers. By his inaction, he's protecting the insurance companies and not Texans.  He's been in the office so long he's forgotten who he is supposed to serve. This AG sits idly by and watches insurance companies have their way with Texas consumers."

The Texas Attorney General has the duty to protect insurance consumers, and the power to attack companies for deceptive trade practices and unconscionable activities. The Attorney General has the duty to protect Texas consumers from profiteers seeking to cheat the public. The Texas Attorney General can discover insurance companies hiding true loss ratios (claims paid divided by premiums collected), taking excessive profits, and saddling consumers with unreasonable investment losses and business costs, including risk insulation via costly reinsurance.

If an insurance company had to consider whether it could pass on excessive incurred costs, it would engage in more reasonable business practices. But when guaranteed free rein in passing on costs, insurers will naturally use expensive methods to insure they bear little or no risk. And, with no investigation, an insurance company can pass on the cost of bad investments. The Attorney General has massive investigative powers, obtaining company records via a powerful    subpoena-like tool: a civil investigative demand. The Attorney General has tremendous enforcement powers, setting example by going after wrongdoers in enforcement actions.

###

During her 30 year legal career, Barbara Ann has represented retirees, life-saving doctors, blood banks, children burned by lighters, families of murder victims, unfairly treated businesses: a wide variety of persons entitled to protection. Barbara Ann graduated with honors from the University of Houston and the University Of Texas School of Law.   She was honored as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1988 and for the past 17 years she has been listed in "Best Lawyers in America".

Prior to 2006, she was a partner at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in Houston, where she served as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Section.  She was the first woman at Vinson & Elkins to have children as an associate and later attain partnership.  Texas has never had a woman Attorney General. 

Media Contact:
Katie Floyd
Office: 713-357-3360
katie.floyd@radnofsky.com

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, the Democratic nominee for Texas Attorney General, commented on the incestuous[i] relationship between Attorney General Abbott and Bob Perry, the Houston homebuilder ordered Monday to pay $51 million to a Mansfield couple who purchased a defective home from his company.

Radnofsky: "Bob Perry was protected for years due to his incestuous relationship with Greg Abbott. The Attorney General acts to protect his own political interests as funded by his patrons."

Since 2001, Greg Abbott has received in excess of $1 million in campaign donations from Mr. and Mrs. Bob Perry, of the huge Bob Perry Homes building giant.  In return, the Attorney General has been active in coddling homebuilders. 

Radnofsky explained how the Texas Attorney General shielded Bob Perry and other homebuilders, historically:

"The Texas Attorney General is a massively powerful position.

"It was an Attorney General opinion which enabled the wasteful, bureaucratic and industry-dominated Texas Residential Construction Commission (TRCC) to flourish, until the legislature eliminated the Commission.

 "I call on Attorney General Abbott to return every penny of the million plus dollars he received from Mr. and Mrs. Perry."

This includes, particularly, the $170,000 from July 29 through December 15, 2005 the Perrys paid to Attorney General Abbott {Exhibit A}.  After the Perrys paid  $100,000 of this amount on December 15, 2005, the Attorney General was sent a December 16, 2005 request from the Chairman of the House Committee on State Affairs {Exhibit B} questioning the Comptroller's Review of the TRCC.  The Attorney General went on to thwart and quash the Comptroller's Review in a May 3, 2006 opinion, effectively shielding builders. [ii]

The Attorney General prevented investigation of the TRCC [iii], a wasteful and intrusive government agency, by the Texas Comptroller. [iv]

John Cobarruvias, of Houston, Texas, an active member of Homeowners of Texas approved of Radnofsky's call for Greg Abbott to return the Perrys' campaign contributions, noting:

"Bob Perry and his wife gave well over a million dollars to Greg Abbott as Attorney General.  In return, Mr. Abbott has done nothing for the homeowners of Texas who need his help.  When you are stuck with a bad house, it wrecks you financially, and your family relationships suffer as well."

###

During her 30 year legal career, Barbara Ann has represented retirees, life-saving doctors, blood banks, children burned by lighters, families of murder victims, unfairly treated businesses: a wide variety of persons entitled to protection. Barbara Ann graduated with honors from the University of Houston and the University Of Texas School of Law.   She was honored as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1988 and for the past 17 years she has been listed in "Best Lawyers in America".

Prior to 2006, she was a partner at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in Houston, where she served as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Section.  She was the first woman at Vinson & Elkins to have children as an associate and later attain partnership.  Texas has never had a woman Attorney General. 

Media Contact:

Katie Floyd

Office: 713-357-3360

katie.floyd@radnofsky.com

Please contact Katie for exhibits.

[i] Incestuous: Random House, third definition: being so close or intimate as to prevent proper functioning: an incestuous relationship between organized crime and government.

[ii]The Residential Construction Commission, later eliminated thanks to homeowners' efforts in the legislature, had no enforcement power to make builders fix defects.  The Comptroller explained, "...the homeowners' only recourse is to go to binding arbitration, as required by most builder contracts, or to go to court - precisely the outcome the Texas Residential Construction Commission was created to prevent."

[iii] The Attorney General admitted in his May 3, 2006 opinion dismissing the Comptroller's powers of investigation that Tax Code language authorizes the Comptroller to "at any time examine and investigate the expenditure of appropriated money for a state institution or for any other purpose...The Comptroller shall investigate any state institution when required by information coming to his own knowledge." Tex. Tax Code Ann. Section 111.003(e) (Vernon 2001).

Nonetheless, the Attorney General ruled that the Tax Code didn't authorize the comptroller to "investigate state agencies and their agencies and their policies; management and operations." AG Opinion GA-0427, p6(May 3, 2006).

[iv] The Comptroller's conclusions concerning that agency which she described on January 23, 2006:

"This agency imposes costly and bureaucratic roadblocks for homeowners left out in the cold by shabby construction and a commission dominated by builders, where even the public members are beholden to the industry they are supposed to be regulating."

"In FY 2005, the agency spent $3.7 million on its operations.  That same year, the agency collected $6.6 million from builders and homeowners.  As a result, the agency transferred $2.9 million to the general fund, effectively helping balance the general state budget on the backs of homeowners."

Attorney General Abbott issued a press release today challenging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Barbara Ann Radnofsky, 2010 Democratic candidate for Texas Attorney General, responded:

"The Attorney General is fighting to protect his own political interests, not the health or economic well being of Texans. Examine the hypocrisy in the Attorney General's legal filing: The AG makes pointed criticism of the EPA while at the same time taking credit for EPA's multiple achievements.

"The AG's position for and against the EPA is like accepting a multi-million dollar personal injury payout and advocating for tort reform to prevent multi-million dollar personal injury payouts.

"If the Attorney General cares for the people of Texas, he'd fight for fair pricing of natural gas, which would benefit property tax payors and royalty holders, like the State of Texas and its income beneficiaries: the students of Texas. If the Attorney General cared about Texas property owners, he'd have intervened in Exxon v Emerald as requested, to protect our natural resources from massive waste and sabotage. And if the Attorney General cared about the taxpayers of this state, he'd have declared the margin income tax unconstitutional, instead of allowing it to proceed without the constitutionally required vote of the people of Texas."

###

During her 30 year legal career, Barbara Ann has represented retirees, life-saving doctors, blood banks, children burned by lighters, families of murder victims, unfairly treated businesses: a wide variety of persons entitled to protection. Barbara Ann graduated with honors from the University of Houston and the University Of Texas School of Law. She was honored as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1988 and for the past 17 years she has been listed in "Best Lawyers in America".

Prior to 2006, she was a partner at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in Houston, where she served as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Section. She was the first woman at Vinson & Elkins to have children as an associate and later attain partnership. Texas has never had a woman Attorney General.

Media Contact:
Katie Floyd
Office: 713-357-3360
katie.floyd@radnofsky.com

What: Barbara Ann Radnofsky, 2010 Democratic candidate for Texas Attorney General, will join other early voters in Houston to cast her ballot in the Democratic Primary.

When: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at noon

Where: Metropolitan Multi-Service Center, 1475 W. Gray Houston, Texas 77019

Notes: The press is invited to attend. Prior to and after voting, Barbara Ann will be available for questions.

During her 30 year legal career, Barbara Ann has represented retirees, life-saving doctors, blood banks, children burned by lighters, families of murder victims, unfairly treated businesses: a wide variety of persons entitled to protection. Barbara Ann graduated with honors from the University of Houston and the University Of Texas School of Law. She was honored as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1988 and for the past 17 years she has been listed in "Best Lawyers in America".

Prior to 2006, she was a partner at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in Houston, where she served as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Section. She was the first woman at Vinson & Elkins to have children as an associate and later attain partnership. Texas has never had a woman Attorney General.

###

Media Contact:
Katie Floyd
Office: 713-357-3360
katie.floyd@radnofsky.com

What: Barbara Ann Radnofsky, 2010 Democratic candidate for Texas Attorney General, will be in Corpus Christi on Monday, January 11, 2010 for meetings and a meet and greet at the Nueces County Democratic Party Headquarters. 

When: Monday, January 11, 2010 from noon-1:00 p.m.

Where: Nueces County Democratic Party Headquarters, 3904 Leopard Street, Corpus Christi, Texas 78408

Why: Barbara Ann will discuss Attorney General Abbott's missed opportunities to advocate for South Texas, why she is running for Texas Attorney General, and why Texans are ready for a new leader.  The Attorney General is protecting and promoting himself, pursuing his own political agenda instead of doing his job and protecting Texas.

Notes: The media is invited to attend.

###

During her 30 year legal career, Barbara Ann Radnofsky has represented retirees, life-saving doctors, blood banks, children burned by lighters, families of murder victims, unfairly treated businesses: a wide variety of persons entitled to protection. Barbara Ann graduated with honors from the University of Houston and the University Of Texas School of Law.   She was honored as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1988 and for the past 17 years she has been listed in "Best Lawyers in America".

Prior to 2006, she was a partner at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in Houston, where she served as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Section.  She was the first woman at Vinson & Elkins to have children as an associate and later attain partnership.  Texas has never had a woman Attorney General. 

Media Contact:
Katie Floyd
Office: 713-357-3360
katie.floyd@radnofsky.com

In the Texas Attorney General race, the Democratic opponent, Barbara Ann Radnofsky issues this reply and challenge to Attorney General Abbott's newest legal arguments concerning health care: 

Today, Attorney General Abbott abandoned his vague constitutional claims (Abbott December 30 press release re: Nebraska Compromise) for which he has no standing.  In a letter directed solely to Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn, Attorney General Abbott concedes his original due process arguments, "...may not be susceptible to challenge by the states ...".

Mr. Abbott threatens litigation, repeating a claim that Congress violated its own spending powers.

This is a legal loser.  If this argument had legal merit, where was Attorney General Abbott for the last seven years?  He could have been fighting for Texas against the unfair distribution of our federal highway gas tax dollars. Greg Abbott was not fighting for us then. He is fighting for his political future using states' rights as a wedge issue.  In a state where the Governor talks of illegal secession as the Attorney General speaks of states' rights, Texans are reliving more than 200 years of controversy.

On December 30, Mr. Abbott embraced a letter (co-signed by 13 State Attorneys General) claiming the Congress should heed a warning from the U.S. Supreme Court. The cases Mr. Abbott cited provide no warnings; the cases are the opposite. Each case is an example of judicial restraint, each emphasizing and validating the Constitutional power of Congress to spend money in aid of the general welfare with a "wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 (1937). The Helvering case championed specifically the power of Art 6, par 2 of the Constitution, that the Constitution and U.S. laws "made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.." Supreme Court Justice Cardozo held in Helvering: "Whether wisdom or unwisdom in the scheme of benefits set forth in Title II (Old Age Benefits), it is not for us to say. The answer to such inquiries must come from Congress, not courts."

Having abandoned Helvering, Attorney General Abbott relies on So. Dakota v. Dole, 483 US 203 (1987), which relied on Helvering: "in considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress.".

In Helvering, Supreme Court Justice Cardozo references the historical debate on the rights of States in a decision which included the Supremacy Clause, the Tenth Amendment, the modern incorporation of western and rural states, the 1929 Stock Market Crash and the emergent conditions of the poor, the unemployed and aged and the federal government's obligations and abilities. Helvering is no warning to Congress to heed states' rights.

The Attorney General has now greatly shifted from challenging horse-trading in a bill version not enacted to the entire concept of health care reform and the role of the Tenth Amendment.  These issues have been briefed extensively by legal scholars and merit debate.  Therefore, I challenge Attorney General Abbott to a debate on these points.

###

During her 30 year legal career, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, Democratic candidate for Texas Attorney General, has represented retirees, life-saving doctors, blood banks, children burned by lighters, families of murder victims, unfairly treated businesses: a wide variety of persons entitled to protection. Barbara Ann graduated with honors from the University of Houston and the University Of Texas School of Law.   She was honored as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1988 and for the past 17 years she has been listed in "Best Lawyers in America".

Prior to 2006, she was a partner at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in Houston, where she served as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Section.  She was the first woman at Vinson & Elkins to have children as an associate and later attain partnership.  Texas has never had a woman Attorney General.  

Media Contact
Katie Floyd
713-357-3360
katie.floyd@radnofsky.com