Commentary roundup: What newspapers around the state are saying

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Feb. 9 editorial, "Court ruling puts abuse victims at risk — and takes gun rights to ridiculous extremes."

The 5th Circuit [Court of Appeals] ruling basically says in light of the [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v.] Bruen case, criminals such as [Zackey] Rahimi can possess firearms while under a restraining order because at the time of the Constitution's drafting, there were no domestic violence laws, or even a recognition of such a thing. Judge Cory Wilson says the ban was "an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted."

It seems far-reaching, even for the conservative 5th Circuit, to analyze a case in 2020 about a violent criminal and his gun rights through the lens of a time when Black slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. Racism and sexism abounded, yet we have grown and evolved and — mercifully — recognize the rights of all, even though that wasn't always the case. Why would the Second Amendment be excluded from the application of such changes?

Just as lawmakers — and the Supreme Court — have sided against the portion of American history that would not recognize interracial marriage, our view of domestic violence has evolved. Surely it's one thing to interpret the Constitution how it would have been understood when it was written and another to insist that obvious societal changes can't be incorporated.

There's originalism and then there's originalism and on this, the 5th Circuit seems to have, almost facetiously, gone too far. Such are the mental gymnastics of the ruling and absolute indifference toward the application of it. Under this analysis, would not all of our modern gun laws crumble?

The second reason we disagree with this ruling is the practical application of it, which ignores victims of domestic violence. Unfortunately, sometimes neither a restraining order nor a federal law prohibits abuse. But orders can be a deterrent and offer victims trying to survive peace of mind.

— Fort Worth Star-Telegram Editorial Board

Houston Chronicle

Feb. 6 editorial, "School choice? Give teachers a raise, not a punch in the gut."

We’re all for school choice. We’re glad that parents have a right to send their kids to any school they choose – private, public or at home. We’re pleased they can choose free charter schools or choose to transfer their kids to schools within or outside their district. Our problem is with the idea of using taxpayer dollars to subsidize private and religious schools.

For example, a bill sponsored by state Sen. Mayes Middleton, a Galveston Republican and member of the Texas Freedom Caucus, is a case in point. His Senate Bill 176 would create a state education savings account that would allow parents to pay for their children’s private school, online schooling or private tutors. It would provide Texas families who opt out of public schools the average amount of money the state provides to educate a child, currently about $10,000. Struggling public schools, particularly those in rural areas, would suffer.

Lawmakers advocating for what they consider choice ignore the fact that their primary responsibility as state officials is to keep public schools whole. That means paying teachers a decent salary.

The challenges that today’s teacher faces are a lot more serious than having to board with a family that ignores housekeeping chores or has a passel of noisy youngsters underfoot. More and more good teachers are abandoning the profession, not only because of low pay, hours devoted to working overtime and sometimes having to pay for school supplies out of their own salary, but also health worries during the pandemic, mass-shooting anxieties, as well as rude parents, school boards and elected officials more interested in culture wars than education. Public schools across the state – rural, urban and suburban – are struggling to fill teacher vacancies.

Texas ranks 28th in the nation in teacher pay, $7,652 less than the national average, according to the most recent National Education Association report. A 2018 survey from the Texas State Teachers Association anda 2022 survey by the Charles Butt Foundation both found that 40 percent of Texas teachers work a second job, not for extra spending money but to cover necessities. Pay raises would help pay bills, to be sure, but also, in a state with the ninth-largest economy in the world, a pay raise would be a statement of respect for the vital role that teachers play in a democratic society.

— Houston Chronicle Editorial Board

San Antonio Express-News

Feb. 7 editorial, "Qualified immunity shields injustice."

We have editorialized in support of several of the measures [Sen. Roland] Gutierrez has put forward: the creation of a Uvalde victims’ compensation fund, raising the purchase age for firearms from 18 to 21; providing avenues for law enforcement officers to remove firearms when people are deemed a danger.

But we had stayed silent on his push to end qualified immunity for law enforcement officers in Texas because we wanted to better understand the repercussions of such a change. Qualified immunity, a federal judicial doctrine, essentially shields officers accused of civil rights violations.

We get it. Police officers make split-second decisions and could be the subject of any number of frivolous claims. And the vast majority of law enforcement officers serve their communities at incredible personal risk. But as Alexandra Klein, a professor at St. Mary’s University School of Law, told our Editorial Board, qualified immunity has created unreasonably high hurdles when civil rights claims are alleged.

Plaintiffs have to show officers violated a person’s constitutional rights and that a reasonable person would know these actions were a violation at the time. Courts, in turn, have taken very narrow interpretations of the specific facts of cases to determine if precedent was established.

“You can sue a lawyer for malpractice,” Gutierrez said. “You can sue a doctor for malpractice. You can sue a priest. You can sue a teacher, but you cannot sue a cop for ordinary negligence.”

— San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board

Dallas Morning News

Feb. 9 editorial, "Ted Cruz’s term limits stance would be helpful if he’d walk the talk."

Nothing signals a lack of seriousness than to propose a standard that you’re not willing to follow.

Case in point is Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who recently proposed that U.S. senators be limited to two six-year terms in office — even as he is running for a third term. Asked about this during an interview with CBS News, Cruz said, “If and when it passes, I’ll happily ... comply. I never said I’m going to unilaterally comply.”

Cruz’s penchant for self-preservation aside, support for term limits polls strongly across political, geographic and demographic divides. Roughly 80% of Americans approve of term limits on members of Congress. However, a serious national discussion of whether to adopt term limits has to run through the Congress, which is tantamount to asking the foxes to guard the henhouse.

Cruz described himself during the interview as a “passionate defender of term limits,” adding that “Congress would work much better if every senator were limited to two terms, if every House member were limited to three terms.”

Frankly, lowering demonizing partisan rhetoric on social media and committing to legitimately debate ideas and solve problems would be useful, too. And if lawmakers didn’t have to constantly raise money for the next campaign around the clock, then perhaps serving the public would outweigh serving selfish interests.

— Dallas Morning News Editorial Board

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Austin American-Statesman Commentary Roundup: Feb. 12, 2023