Texas law already states that local governments cannot adopt any gun control laws or statutes beyond those passed by the state legislature. SB 987 takes that state law a step further. The state may now file suit against any municipality or local government who seeks to adopt or implement such a law. The suit will result in an injunction, permanent or temporary, to prevent such an adoption.

In other words, cities such as San Antonio or Houston cannot pass their own gun control laws like cities in other states, such as Chicago, IL, have in the past. Should Mayor Castro of San Antonio succeed in pushing through a ban against AR-15 semi-automatic .223 rifles, the state of Texas can immediately order San Antonio to not enforce that law. Should Houston pass a law prohibiting armed guards or educators at schools, the Texas laws providing for those personnel supersedes the city ordinance. A district could then provide those armed security personnel, regardless of the city ordinance.

The law also applies to regulations governing shooting ranges, indoor or outdoor. The state regulations are the effective regulations. The city cannot arbitrarily ban ranges that meet the state requirements.

The full bill enrolled and forwarded to Governor Perry for signature is available at this link.

    (f)  The attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state to obtain a temporary or permanent injunction against a municipality adopting a regulation in violation of this section.

SECTION 2.  Section 236.002, Local Government Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 236.002.  FIREARMS; SPORT SHOOTING RANGE.

(a)  Notwithstanding any other law, including Chapter 251, Agriculture Code, a county may not adopt regulations relating to:

(1)  the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies; or

(2)  the discharge of a firearm at a sport shooting range.

(b)  The attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state to obtain a temporary or permanent injunction against a county adopting a regulation, other than a regulation under Section 236.003, in violation of this section.

Could Bill Impose More Gun Control?

Like many acts of any legislature, be it state, local, or federal, this bill presents a double-edged sword.

Not only does the bill prevent local governments from imposing further gun control regulations, it prevents them from lifting infringements upon the Second Amendment.

For example, imagine a municipality near the border area determines that ranchers and farmers be allowed to openly carry their pistols to protect their property and family from drug cartels. The state could now automatically impose and injunction against that law. This would be despite the fact that the Texas restrictions against open-carry are infringements upon the US Constitution. The applicable state gun control laws override the local statutes.

No town or municipality in Texas would be allowed to pass a city ordinance such as the one unanimously passed some years ago in Kennesaw, Georgia. The town of Kennesaw passed a referendum made city ordinance that mandates all property owners own a firearm to protect their property. Crime in the city dropped to near zero. The per capita violent crime rate in that town are among the lowest in the nation. Texas towns would not be allowed to pass similar local laws.

The new bill prevents localities from adding their own gun control laws. It also denies those same localities from better protecting those rights.

SB 1406 places online, digital, or other collaborative curricula, such as CSCOPE, under the auspices of the State Board of Education and subject to the review, audit and approval process that textbooks and other educational media must undergo. As of Wednesday, SB 1046 has passed both houses of the Texas Legislature, been enrolled and sent to Gov. Perry for signature.

Sec. 8.0531.  INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS DEVELOPED BY A COLLABORATION OF REGIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE CENTERS. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter or Section 8.001(c), instructional lessons developed as part of a curriculum management system by a regional education service center, acting alone or in collaboration with one or more other regional education service centers, shall be subject to the same review and adoption process as outlined in Section 31.022.

CSCOPE history of controversy

The move comes after CSCOPE came under fire when several controversial curricula and lesson plans came to light. Some had a decidedly anti-American bent. Others had math problems designed to indoctrinate elementary school students in wealth redistribution commonly used in socialist tyrannies.

State Sen. Dan Patrick led a charge to place CSCOPE under State Board of Education oversight. Among the major concerns parents had with CSCOPE was a perceived lack of transparency in the system. Parents were denied access to the lesson plans and curricula CSCOPE offered. Parental rights, opponents of CSCOPE claim, were infringed. Parents were placed in a reactive role, unable to screen educational tools and lessons their children would be exposed to until after the kids were subjected to them.

Many opponents of CSCOPE argue that the program and software suite was being used as a means to “backdoor” the Common Core State Standards Initiative (Common Core) into Texas schools.

The Texas 83rd legislative session has passed several bills banning Common Core from Texas schools. Some believe that this may have spurred advocates of Common Core to sneak Common Core Curricula itemsinto the CSCOPE system.

CSCOPE will still be used

Though CSCOPE will no longer share lesson plans, the program isn’t going away. Instead, it is being reconfigured to contain schedules and tips for assisting teachers in enabling students to meet gateways and hurdles.

CSCOPE was not outlawed. Instead, Patrick suggested that more oversight be given to all digital and online educational tools used by educational institutions. CSCOPE is but one online educational tool available to educators, parents and students.

Several proponents of CSCOPE issued statements against the decision. They claim the decision and the bill are government overreach that will impede the educational growth of the students. Many are appealing the bill as it awaits the governor’s signature.

The Texas Tribune published this article on the CSCOPE decision and reactions from both sides of the issue.

They have been established in San Antonio, Austin and Harris County.

The concept seems to go nowhere in Bell County – home to Fort Hood, one of the largest United States military installations in the world – where the legal community has turned a deaf ear on all arguments that soldiers who have seen heavy combat are prone to take the law into their own hands and better served when allowing their cases to be handled by judges who are former Judge Advocate General officers willing to work with the Army on discharge and treatment issues.

Here is a report of a case of one such warrior who returned stateside and found himself in a world of trouble at Fort Carson, Colorado – http://cdn.csgazette.biz/soldiers/day3.html.

In a news release, TMLC further details its action:

TMLC’s Erin Mersino is lead attorney in the case. She is assisted by Texas attorneys, Joseph R. Gutheinz of Friendship, Texas, and Houston attorney Jerad Wayne Najvar. The City of Houston, its Police Chief, and three Houston Police Officers are named as defendants in the lawsuit. Click here to read full complaint.

Allen’s three arrests occurred while he was preaching the Gospel message against the sins of abortion, homosexuality, and adultery on public sidewalks in Houston, Texas. His preaching included donning a wool prayer shawl called a “Tallit” and sounding a ram’s horn known as a “Shofar.”

Allen’s first arrest occurred in May 2011 while he was praying on a public sidewalk in front of the local Planned Parenthood facility. Two Houston police officers arrested Allen, handcuffed and placed him in the back of the police squad car for approximately 45-60 minutes in suffocating heat without air conditioning. Allen was removed from the squad car only after a third officer noted that he had been overcome by the heat. Upon his removal, he collapsed to the ground and had to be rushed to a hospital for medical treatment.

The second arrest occurred in October 2011, while Allen was preaching on a Houston street corner. The case was ultimately dismissed by the prosecutor for lack of evidence that a crime had been committed.

In January 2012, Allen’s third arrest occurred while he was preaching on a Houston street. He and another preacher hoped to spread the Gospel to the crowd of spectators gathered for the Houston Marathon. Allen was jailed for most of the day until his wife was able to obtain his release by posting a bond. He was charged with failure to obey a lawful order and possession of a ‘staff’ – referring to his Shofar. The case was dismissed when police failed to appear in court.

TMLC’s lawsuit cites repeated violations of David Allen’s constitutional First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech by officers of the Houston Police Department. The lawsuit also claims Allen’s arrest and detainment without probable cause or lawful authority violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure. TMLC’s lawsuit seeks to stop the Houston Police Department from future constitutional violations and harassment of David Allen as he exercises his right to preach the Gospel on the public sidewalks of the City.

“This case is primarily about the right of a Christian preacher, exercising his rights to free speech on the public sidewalks of Houston, to condemn what he believes are sins of our society,” Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said. “The Supreme Court has held that public sidewalks are traditional public forums where speech cannot be restricted based on content.  So, as long as Mr. Allen is not violating any constitutionally valid laws, the police cannot arrest him or otherwise interfere with his right to free speech just because they don’t like his message or the way he is expressing it.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education and related activities.

Temple – These people are wrong, and they know it. It shows.

City and County officials hereabouts, police and prosecutors, judges and lawyers, are extremely fearful that the people will see that.

In February, Texas Tribune’s Ross Ramsey provided an overview of lawmaker/lobbyist ties. He noted how in the state capital environment where “moving from the Legislature to the lobby — and, sometimes, the other way — is unremarkable, it is also common to find the relatives of lawmakers working with state government.”

With education a hot topic this session, the intersection of legislators, lobbyists, family and education industry interests becomes all the more noteworthy.

The family of former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff tops that list. Ratliff, a Texas state senator from 1988-2004 before serving as lieutenant governor 2000-2003, is now a lobbyist for Raise Your Hand Texas, a pro-public school/anti-voucher advocacy organization. Founded in 2006 by H. E. Butt Grocery Co. Chairman Charles Butt, the group works to strengthen public education in Texas.

In 2012, Rep. Bennett Ratliff, R-Coppell, was elected to represent District 115 of the Texas House. He is Bill Ratliff’s oldest son while the younger son, Thomas, was elected to the State Board of Education in 2010. His business, The Ratliff Company, provides governmental relations consulting and lobbying services ” in matters dealing with the Texas Legislative and Executive Branches, as well as key State Agencies.”

Ramsey says this of the Ratliff operation:

Bill Ratliff and Thomas Ratliff developed a system. Thomas would let an aide to his father know what legislation he was lobbying, and the aide, without being specific, would keep his father out. When Bill Ratliff was lieutenant governor, the Senate parliamentarian was the gatekeeper, alerting him to hand the gavel to someone else — a senator — when legislation Thomas Ratliff was involved in was up for debate.

“You almost have to try to be Caesar’s wife — you don’t want anything that even looks like a conflict,” Bill Ratliff said. “Had we not handled this correctly, it would have been a problem every time.”

The article also reminds the Ratliffs aren’t alone in dealing with this challenge or in having ties to the education interests.

Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, R-Killeen, chairs the House Public Education Committee while his daughter, Michelle Smith, works as an education lobbyist.

Earlier this month, Texas Tribune’s Morgan Smith discussed the influence of Raise Your Hand Texas with an article In Education Reform Debate, One Group Stands Out. Smith wrote:

At one point during the House debate, state Rep. Abel Herrero, D-Corpus Christi, asked whether that group, Raise Your Hand Texas, a staunch opponent of vouchers, was opposed to the measure.

After being handed a phone by state Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, a Killeen Republican who is the chairman of the House Public Education Committee, Rep. Dan Huberty, a Humble Republican who supported bill, responded, “I have a text message right here that says they were for it as it came out of committee.”

She contrasts the group’s activities with Texans for Education Reform, a group of education and business leaders advocating access for national best practices for every public school child in the state. These practices include online learning, blended learning, access to high-performing public-charter schools, intervention in failing schools and a functional Parent Trigger law.

Smith additionally reports:

Texans for Education Reform will spend at least $645,000 in lobbying contracts this year to build awareness for those solutions, according to filings with the Texas Ethics Commission. (This is an estimate because reporting requirements allow multiple contracts to reflect a single payment shared by representatives of the same firm.) Among the group’s founders are Dick Weekley and Richard J. Trabulsi Jr., veterans of the state’s tort reform battles who now control one of the state’s wealthiest political action committees. Florence Shapiro, the Plano Republican who preceded Patrick as leader of the Senate Education Committee, is a lobbyist with the group, along with Mike Toomey, a former lawmaker and chief of staff to Perry.

Raise Your Hand has its own political firepower. It reports spending an estimated minimum of $350,000 on a lobbying team that includes former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff and Aycock’s daughter, who works at the Austin firm HillCo Partners. Though the group does not make contributions, Butt is a top political donor in the state who has given substantial sums to both Republicans and Democrats, as well as to a public schools-oriented political action committee.

Activities involving other family names like Goldman, Keffer, Pitts, Strama and Whitmire are also specifically addressed in Ramsey’s article.

He describes a contract used by John Pitts, twin brother of House Appropriations Committee Chair Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, that specifies clients hiring him to lobby everyone at the Texas Capitol except for the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. The contract was reportedly inspired by a Thomas Ratliff contract clause as Ratliff’s family “is sort of a Petri dish for relatives in and out of office.”

Adam Goldman, brother of Rep. Craig Goldman, R-Fort Worth, claims a similar approach. “I don’t talk about clients with him or about issues,” he told the Tribune, “And my clients know there’s one officeholder I can’t touch.”

These other representatives and their lobbyist family members are also named:

Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, has a brother, Keith, who lobbies. Chris Keffer, son of Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, the chairman of the House Energy Resources Committee, is registered. So is Whitney Whitmire, whose father, John Whitmire, D-Houston, is chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.

For all the ethical safeguards allegedly maintained within the legislative process, the public often remains skeptical that integrity abounds. It’s unlikely analysis of this session will ultimately alter that view – especially for those who believe its family ties that bind.

             (3)  makes one or more political expenditures, excluding expenditures authorized by Section 253.098, 253.099, 253.100, or 253.104, that in the aggregate exceed $25,000 during a calendar year.

Furthermore, SB 346 requires itemization of contributions exceeding $1,000.

       Sec. 254.283.  CONTENTS OF REPORT. (a)  Itemization of a contribution under Section 254.031(a)(1) is required only if the contribution exceeds $1,000 during the reporting period.
(b)  The first report required to be filed in a calendar year in which the $25,000 threshold under Section 254.281(a)(3) is exceeded must include all political contributions accepted and all political expenditures made in that calendar year.

Of note, labor unions are exempt from reporting political donations.

       (b)  This subchapter does not apply to a labor organization or any subordinate entity or associated account of a labor organization.

Though the bill has been forwarded to the Governor’s Office for action, Gov. Rick Perry has not yet signed it into law. The full enrolled version of the bill forwarded to the Governor is available this link.

Call To Veto:  Concerns Over Targeting Political Donations

Erick Erickson of Red State Magazine (and WSB Radio in Atlanta, GA) published an editorial on the bill.

Erickson makes several key points in his argument for veto of this bill. Perhaps one of the key points he made was that reporting and releasing the names of donors could bring unethical and illegal targeting against these organizations or their individual donors.

Erickson cites such activity in Wisconsin and California in the recent past. In addition, the recent revelations of IRS targeting specific groups for special auditing aggravates these examples.

Beyond Erickson’s well-stated debate, there are other issues proponents of a veto add.

One such item of consideration is the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the controversial Citizens United case. The Supreme Court decision may apply to potential misuse and targeting promoted by the SB 346  mandate to report all political donations by non-profit groups.

Another argument for veto may include 14th Amendment violations. The bill targets specific groups who are not conducting illicit activity. The political donations reporting law could, feasibly, be considered to deny just and equal treatment under the law. This point is exacerbated by the final argument in favor of veto.

Among the several stated reasons to veto the political donations reporting bill, SB 346, is the exemption for labor unions. It is public knowledge that the largest labor unions in the U.S. make routine political donations on behalf of their members. Their contributions almost exclusively go towards one political party. Exempting labor unions from these political donation accountability laws appears to specifically target those NPOs who donate to the opposing party. The bill, therefore, seems biased and unethical. Should labor unions also be required to report political donations and contributions, the bill would be far more equitable.

In addition, most labor unions make these political donations regardless of the political ideology of their members. They collect the union membership dues and make political donations from those dues.

Based upon the several questions and counter-points to the bill, it will be interesting to see Gov. Perry’s resulting actions. His decision could have a huge impact on any future political aspirations.

Read full story at CSCOPE to Discontinue Providing ISD Lesson Plans; Other Questions Still Exist.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Sen. Dan Patrick

Click here to view the embedded video.

Dr. Kyle Wargo of CSCOPE Board

Click here to view the embedded video.

Sen. Donna Campbell, R- New Braunfels, on CSCOPE’s curtailment 

Per a released statement, Patrick acknowledged receipt of a letter signed by all members of the TESCCC board, a board which comprises the states’ 20 Education Service Center (ESC) executive directors, that outlined plans to notify the 875 CSCOPE school district clients that all lesson plans will be removed from their website on Aug. 31 and that any lessons on hand cannot be used beyond that date.

The letter additionally states that Regional ESCs will not produce lesson plans in the future and will instead return to their original business plan of providing a management tool to assist teachers staying on schedule with the state-required Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards. The official vote will take place at a previously-scheduled May 24 board meeting.

“I’m pleased that the CSCOPE Board has made the decision to get out of the lesson plan business. This is a positive development for students, parents, teachers, and for the Regional Service Centers,” Patrick said. “I want to thank the members of the Senate Education Committee for their months of work on this issue. I also want to thank Attorney General Abbott and his staff in providing valuable assistance in our review of CSCOPE.”

“Once the TESCCC officially approves this measure Friday I will notify the SBOE that they do not need to review the 1600 CSCOPE lesson plans,” he additionally noted. “The CSCOPE era is over. However, what the last several months has proven is that the state will have to create a plan to monitor all on line material in the future so that our schools and classroom remain completely transparent to parents and the legislature knows what is being taught in our classrooms across Texas.”

“We’ve learned one thing: lesson plans have a lot of subjectivity to them. We talk about how vast Texas is – one size does not fit all in this great state,” Kyle Wargo, CSCOPE board member representing Regional Service Center 17 in Lubbock, told the Houston Chronicle. “Lessons need to be developed at a local level, by the teacher, who understands the values and needs in that community.”

In the aftermath of a contentious Jan. 31 legislative hearing, Patrick announced changes termed as “sweeping” for CSCOPE. Patrick, also chair of the Senate Committee on Education, worked with the TESCCC and SBOE to address concerns raised at the hearing and the parties identified a series of immediate and upcoming changes.

Changes included future TESCCC board meetings being properly posted and public as per the Texas Open Meetings Act. The TESCCC engaging in a joint review process of all CSCOPE lessons with the SBOE beginning with Social Studies. The Terms of Use Agreements, signed by both teachers and districts, being amended removing civil or criminal penalties associated with the release of CSCOPE content. Clarification issued specifying that all teachers and districts may post any and all CSCOPE lessons deemed necessary.

That hearing presented a troubling picture of this taxpayer-funded curriculum whose administration seems outside any normal taxpayer accountability and government oversight channels while the course content suggests anti-American, impractical and poorly-crafted lessons. Its campus-level implementation appears another cause for concern as it seemingly attempts to enforce a regimented, indoctrination-oriented approach to classroom instruction.

Defenders of CSCOPE routinely invoking claims of the program being misinterpreted, misunderstood or a target of misconceptions prompted Patrick at the January hearing to tell three CSCOPE officials “if you were an airline, you’d be grounded.”

And defense of the program is not over.

The Houston Chronicle additionally reports on the Texas Freedom Network as attributing this development to political pressure from Patrick and “tea party and other activist groups who attacked the online tool for allegedly promoting anti-American, Marxist and pro-Islamic lessons.”

After Monday’s announcement, TFN president Kathy Miller issued this statement:

Today political bullying resulted in hundreds of school districts getting thrown under the bus and essentially told to figure out for themselves where to find the resources to replace the service CSCOPE had provided them. The big lesson here is that if you can generate a witch hunt that includes enough incendiary and distorted claims, then there are politicians at the Capitol who are ready to throw their supposed commitment to local control out the window.

On its web site the group also mentions a meeting last week in Dallas whereby the ad hoc committee appointed by SBOE Chair Barbara Cargill met to identify members of the CSCOPE Social Studies curriculum review panels and to finalize a timeline for the project.

All of this comes just days after the State Board of Education‘s special CSCOPE committee met in Dallas to appoint teams to review the curriculum management system. The state board was acting at the request of Sen. Patrick, who earlier this year brokered a deal in which the Education Service Centers agreed to submit their lessons to board review. Apparently, that deal wasn’t good enough for Sen. Patrick or the political activists who have wildly distorted CSCOPE lessons and policies since the start of this controversy.

Another TFN post is headlined Texas SBOE Member Ratliff Tears into Sen. Patrick on CSCOPE Decision. Thomas Ratliff blaming CSCOPE’s demise on politics is worth noting as last week’s SBOE meeting saw committee members reading out loud the names of prospective curriculum review panel members submitted by each SBOE member. This information was coupled with if the nominees were an educator or member of the general public and if they had knowledge or experience with CSCOPE. Of all the nominee lists, Ratliff appeared the only one submitting only nominees with an orientation to CSCOPE. The point was mentioned by one committee member as a side comment regarding his “consistency” and reacted to with laughter by the others. Politics indeed.

Meanwhile, other taxpayer advocates applaud the move while reminding of the larger picture. Peggy Venable, Texas Director of Americans for Prosperity, issued this statement commending the curtailment of CSCOPE curriculum while touching on the additional troubling aspects associated with this taxpayer-funded program:

This is a tremendous victory for Texas parents, students and taxpayers as well as the many teachers who were forced to use CSCOPE.

CSCOPE curriculum content was controversial, but our biggest issue was with the action the Regional Education Service Centers (ESC’s) took to cloak the CSCOPE project in secrecy.  ESC’s created a non-profit shell corporation (TESCCC – Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative) which had no employees, no money and no address, but was used as a shield for ESC staff to claim they were not subject to open records or open meetings.

The Regional Education Service Centers may have agreed to end CSCOPE knowing that they were under intense scrutiny by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott; Lt Gov David Dewhurst was asking for a state audit; and legislative leaders including Senators Patrick, Donna Campbell and Rep. Steve Toth were intent on going through financials and lesson plans and making it all public.

While we are pleased CSCOPE is going to be gone, parents need to be vigilant in working with their local school boards to make sure they have access to their children’s curriculum and the legislature needs to further address how online curriculum and lesson plans may be reviewed in the future.

We at Americans for Prosperity pursue transparency in all government transactions.  We also want American Exceptionalism to be taught in our schools, and we reject Common Core Standards.  We believe CSCOPE followed the Common Core Standards which Texas has rejected.

The Regional Education Service Centers further betrayed the public trust recently by suggesting teachers should pull down the lesson plans they like because they may not have access to them in the future.

We hope this ends CSCOPE, but understand some former Texas superintendents and former ESC employees have created their own consulting firms to sell curriculum.  This curriculum must be subject to public review.

Transparency and financial issues do remain unresolved.

While many CSCOPE media reports feature an evolved narrative that largely reflects education industry talking points, coverage often excludes concerns about the financial aspects of this program – operations that could include fraud, illegalities and/or misuse of taxpayer funds. As mentioned, Abbott’s office is reportedly looking at other CSCOPE-related issues including potential plagiarism allegations. He also in May admonished CSCOPE officials over school districts having attempted to charge parents “hundreds of dollars  for information related to the CSCOPE curriculum” despite Texas law clearly requiring districts to make educational materials accessible to parents.

In an April conference call with media, Dewhurst discussed his own request for a state audit of the ESCs due to questions arising from CSCOPE and its administration.

And World Net Daily reported just days ago how CSCOPE officials finally released financial records, but only “under threat of a subpoena” by Patrick.

A chapter of CSCOPE may be ending, but as the ESCs and local school districts develop their plans going forward, parents, students and taxpayers must remain vigilant.

The final story is far from written.

A second Senate bill, SB 21 takes drug testing a step further. The bill sets conditions for requiring  that testing. If the person seeking unemployment subsidies is in a field whose employers routinely require drug testing as conditions for employment, the unemployment office will also conduct testing as part of eligibility screening for those subsidies.

The gist of the bill indicates that if the applicant’s former employer conducts drug tests, the unemployment office will follow suit.

  Sec. 207.026.  DRUG SCREENING OR TESTING AS CONDITION OF BENEFIT ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN APPLICANTS AND RECIPIENTS.
(a)  The commission by rule shall adopt a drug screening and testing program as part of the requirements for the receipt of benefits under this subtitle by an individual to whom Section 207.021(b-1) applies. The program must:
(1)  comply with the drug testing requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 382 or other similar national requirements for drug testing programs recognized by the commission; and
(2)  be designed to protect the rights of benefit applicants and recipients.

A positive, or suspicious drug test result could mean denial of unemployment benefits. The applicant may return four weeks or more later and re-apply. That application will include a subsequent drug test.

An individual whose drug screening assessment indicates a reasonable likelihood of use by the individual of a substance subject to regulation under that chapter must submit to and pass a drug test administered by or on behalf of the commission to establish the individual’s eligibility for benefits under this subtitle.  An individual who is determined to have failed a drug test under this subsection under a final determination or decision made by the commission under this section is not eligible to receive benefits under this subtitle until the individual has passed a subsequent drug test administered by or on behalf of the commission not earlier than four weeks after the date the individual submitted to the failed drug test.

Positive results from a drug test are not an automatic disqualifying factor, though. There are certain mitigating aspects and appeals. For instance, if the applicant is enrolled in a drug rehabilitation program, they may, under certain circumstances, still receive unemployment benefits.

      (c)  Notwithstanding Subsection (b), an individual is not disqualified from receiving benefits based on the individual’s failure to pass a drug test if, on the basis of evidence presented by the individual, the commission determines that:
(1)  the individual is participating in a treatment program for drug abuse;
(2)  the individual enrolls in and attends a treatment program for drug abuse not later than the seventh day after the date the individual receives initial notice of the failed drug test result; or
(3)  the failure to pass the test is caused by the use of a substance that was prescribed by a health care practitioner as medically necessary for the individual.
(d)  The commission by rule shall prescribe procedures for an appeal and the retaking of a failed drug test by an individual under this section.

If the applicant appeals and the initial test is deemed to have been a “false positive,” the Texas Workforce Commission must then reimburse the applicant for costs of the tests.

             (2)  full payment by the commission of the costs of the retaking of failed drug tests by any individual who contests the individual’s failed drug test as a false positive result and passes a subsequently taken test.

SB 21, drug testing to receive unemployment benefits, faces a Texas House vote some time this week. The full text of the engrossed bill sent to the House is available at this link.