TexasCHLforum.com

Pawpaw wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Panda wrote:Does the Texas legislature and their staff have to pass drug tests?

Many of us have wondered the same thing. Would it politically incorrect to have a nearly identical bill already drafted that required drug testing before being allowed onto a ballot and then again after winning and then again before taking the oath when being sworn in and every two years at the beginning of legislative session?

I don't know why their criminal records would be available. Sure, they wouldn't want them to be, but aren't they public record?

I don't think another bill is needed, but your suggestion would make an excellent amendment to this one!

It would be something to keep in your back pocket and brought out wen needed to make a point. However, I do like your proposal to make it an amendment and tack it on to this bill. Unfortunately, there's a chance they might just go, okay.

http://www.texastribune.org/session/83R ... nne-davis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a little information on Yvonne Davis. She ran unopposed in 2012 both for election and primary, appears she was also unopposed in 2008 for both. She did run against a Republican in 2010 but won by 75%. So her position seems fairly safe.

She works pretty hard for her $7200 a year with it appears lots of bills. Most seem to be fairly technical types of bills. With the exception of this one and a few others dealing with privacy. I may have to do a little reading to see if she is on the constitution's side when it comes to privacy or if she is against it.

In 2008 she was involved with some self dealing

"In 2008, Representative Yvonne Davis, Democrat of Dallas, asked the state’s Racing Commission to expedite a racetrack license she was seeking with her business partner, David Alameel, a dental clinic mogul and self-made millionaire. At the time, Ms. Davis was on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees the revenue the Racing Commission relies on. Ms. Davis said an ethics ruling cleared her to be involved in the deal, which eventually faltered. "

But most interesting is the other bill she has proposed this year which caught our attention: HB2167 Relating to the removal of a state or local officer for refusing or directing others to refuse to enforce state or federal law. This bill would remove sheriffs who failed to follow federal law. This would include laws such as confiscation of firearms, if directed by the federal government.

November 2014 is a ways off. So sending money to her opponent in 2014 (if there is one) is a long time away.

Maybe just a letter for now.

Come on guys, you know they aren't subject to the laws they pass for US..... For cryin' out loud, you don't REALLY think that the intellectually superior ruling class should be subject to the same "common sense" rules that we are do you?????

texanjoker wrote:If they want to drug test me then I say drug test those on welfare!

I think this is her reply to the factions that (rightly in my mind) want to drug test before anyone receives any governmental assistance.

SlickTX wrote:

texanjoker wrote:If they want to drug test me then I say drug test those on welfare!

I think this is her reply to the factions that (rightly in my mind) want to drug test before anyone receives any governmental assistance.

This was my first thought upon reading this thread. I think the appropriate response should be to contact whatever committees her bills are assigned to & express our opposition.