McNeely Says Tactics May Backfire on TX Amendment 12: (AARP, Eagle Forum Oppose It)

Austin, TX, American-Statesman ^ | 09-04-03 | McNeely, Dave

[Theodore R.]

Tactics may backfire on amendment Thursday, September 4, 2003

Texas voters are being hit with mail and television ads for or against Proposition 12, a proposed amendment to the Texas constitution.

If it passes Sept. 13, it would allow the Legislature to place limits on noneconomic damages in lawsuits. It also would clear the way for limits in medical malpractice lawsuits that lawmakers have already passed.

The fact that the proposed amendment and 21 others will face voters on the second Saturday in September — rather than the traditional first Tuesday after the first Monday in November — was an attempt by the amendment's backers to choose their voters.

The proffered rationale was that the change was so important it had to be put in place as soon as possible. But the actual reason was to separate the election from the normal election date, when more voters are expected to turn out, particularly in Houston where a new mayor and other City Council members will be picked. The earlier date would keep away from the polls people who normally wouldn't vote if only constitutional amendments were on the ballot.

The slightly embarrassed Legislature, mostly for cover, decided to change the election date for all the other amendment proposals as well.

What will be interesting is whether the sponsors of the date change might have outsmarted themselves. By setting the constitutional amendments vote apart, they might have put themselves at the mercy of people who read.

Sure, you're being deluged with TV ads and mail predicting dire consequences if Proposition 12 does or doesn't pass.

Doctors, insurance companies and other backers of the amendment say that without it, doctors will be forced out of business by high medical malpractice insurance rates.

Opponents, including plaintiffs' lawyers, say it is an effort by insurance companies and other corporate interests to cut down on the right to sue, which is guaranteed in the Texas constitution.

Editorial pages for the Austin American-Statesman and San Antonio Express-News have endorsed the amendment, while other major papers such as the Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram have come out against it.

Perhaps more important to the potential fate of the amendment is that groups as diverse as the American Association of Retired People and The Eagle Forum oppose it.

The Eagle Forum doesn't want a cap on the amount for which a doctor who performs abortions could be sued.

Organizations such as the Texas Association of Business, Texas Medical Association and Texans for Lawsuit Reform support it.

The bottom line is that if the older, generally more conservative folks who usually vote in special elections become more concerned about cuts to their legal rights than the threat of losing doctors to the high cost of malpractice insurance, the proposal could lose. That would be a huge irony if it happens.

Dave McNeely's column appears Thursdays. Contact him at (512) 445-3644 or dmcneely@statesman.com.