Texas Observer readers,
A half-century ago, Molly Ivins penned one of her many famous lines about the Lege in a special Texas issue of The Atlantic Monthly.
“The Texas Legislature consists of 181 people who meet for 140 days once every two years,” she wrote. “This catastrophe has now occurred sixty-three times.”
The number of lawmakers, the frequency of sessions, and the catastrophic nature of their work all remain unchanged. In other words, swap “sixty-three” for “eighty-nine” and the quip could be published now.
These old lines of Ivins’ speak to the biannual dread progressive-minded Texans feel, perhaps grown only more intense today, as part-time legislators from all reaches of the state descend again on Austin to brainstorm new ways to attack LGBTQ+ residents, hamstring liberal city councils, and invent new crimes through which to further pack our prisons—and, of course, to rack up favors owed by sundry special interests to be paid after sine die.
The thought inevitably emerges: Maybe someone could convince them to meet even less often. Quadrennial, anyone? Or perhaps we could just call this whole legislative-branch thing off.
But, understandable as it is, I think there’s something troubling in this sentiment.
Like it or not (emphasis on the not), we need the Legislature. Even this cursed 89th iteration. Essential and even good things can only be done by these 180-ish individuals. And as they set fires in our public schools, in our cities, and in our homes, progressive reformers must nevertheless skirt the flames and, behind the smoke screen, push marginal improvements and harm reduction.
A few measures stand out to me, all covered in recent Observer reporting, as fixes that should be doable even for our current legislative body: pay raises for teachers, untethered to school privatization; sorely needed raises for other state employees; clarification of the exception to the state’s abortion ban; addressing the state’s future water supply; reducing border security spending; legalization of fentanyl test strips; strengthening the “junk science” law; and requiring transparency from state agencies around artificial intelligence and surveillance.
That’s no exhaustive list. But I hope it demonstrates that there is realistic change to be made. The Observer has been making a point, and will continue to do so, of investigating policy areas where there is at least some chance of bipartisan reform. That isn’t all we do—we must also keep our eyes on longer horizons—but it’s a crucial way for us to use our limited resources.
You’ll see some of this work in our current print issue—including Justin Miller’s feature on the contracting bonanza that is Operation Lone Star—along with more of it in our January/February issue and even more online, where every one of our stories is free to all.
Yours in catastrophe,
Note: To receive our print magazine, become a member here.
The post Editor’s Letter: Introducing Our March/April 2025 Issue appeared first on The Texas Observer.
Leave a Reply