In addition to allowing a full public airing of the evidence, the Bexar County state district judge said the unique legal proceeding would allow Anderson, who is now a district judge, the opportunity to clear his name.

“The only method and venue I know of for that to occur and for Mr. Morton’s interests to be served” is a court of inquiry, Harle said.

Morton was convicted of the 1986 murder of his wife, Christine Morton, who was bludgeoned to death in the couple’s North Austin home. DNA testing results last year showed that Morton was innocent and that another man was likely responsible for his wife’s gruesome death. After spending 25 years in prison, he was released in October and charges against him were dismissed in December.

Morton’s lawyers — John Raley of the Houston law firm Raley & Bowick and Barry Scheck and Nina Morrison of the New York-based Innocence Project — have argued, though, that there was plenty of evidence back in 1987, without DNA, to prevent the former grocery store manager’s wrongful conviction. They allege that Anderson, who is now a state district judge in Williamson County, deliberately concealed that evidence to secure Morton’s conviction, a move that allowed the killer to go free and strike again. They argue that Anderson should be charged with contempt of court and tampering with official documents.

After the hearing, Scheck said he was pleased by the judge’s decision. And a smiling Morton said, “When you do the right thing, as the judge did today, everything else falls into place. It’s just a matter of time. It’s the beginning.”

Eric Nichols, a former assistant attorney general who is representing Anderson, said his client looks forward to the opportunity to clear his name during the court of inquiry. “Judge Anderson is a fine man who has served the people of Williamson County for many years. It’s unfortunate that these accusations have been made,” Nichols said. “At the end of the day, they need to back up those accusations with evidence.”

Nichols added that he is confident there is no evidence that Anderson violated any ethics codes or laws, as Morton’s lawyers allege.

Last month, Morton and his lawyers asked Harle to launch an unprecedented court of inquiry to determine whether Anderson broke state laws and violated professional ethics codes by withholding evidence when he prosecuted Morton.

Morton had contended during his 1987 trial that his wife’s killer must have entered their home after he left for work early in the morning. But Anderson convinced the jury that Morton, who had no criminal history, beat his wife to death in a perverted rage because she denied him sex. All the while, Morton’s lawyers allege, Anderson was concealing evidence that pointed to just the scenario Morton described.

They argue that Anderson withheld police reports that Judge William S. Lott ordered him to disclose during the trial so that he could determine whether they might help Morton’s case. Lott found nothing exculpatory in the few pages Anderson provided, and he ordered the record sealed.

When a different judge ordered the record unsealed in August, Morton’s lawyers discovered that Anderson had provided just a few pages of the available police reports. Crucial evidence was missing, including a transcript of a telephone conversation between a sheriff’s investigator and Morton’s mother-in-law in which she reported that her 3-year-old grandson had seen a “monster” — who was not his father — attack and kill his mother.

Police reports from Morton’s neighbors were also missing. They told police they saw a man in a green van park near their home and walk into the woods behind their house.

Gone from the file, too, were reports that Christine Morton’s credit card had been used and a check with her forged signature was cashed after she died.

Morton’s lawyers conceded today in court, though, that they had recently discovered in the course of the ongoing investigation of the man whose DNA was discovered near the scene of Christine Morton’s murder that the signature on the check was Morton’s and that it was deposited in the couple’s bank account.

In November, Mark Norwood, the man whose DNA was connected to Christine Morton’s death and to the 1988 killing of Debra Masters Baker, was arrested and charged with murder. A Williamson County grand jury indicted Norwood this month.

Baker’s family, including her husband Phillip, her son Jesse, her daughter Caitlin and her sister Lisa Conn, were in the courtroom for the proceedings Friday. The family joined in Morton’s request for the court of inquiry.

John Raley, Morton’s pro bono lawyer from Houston, said the court of inquiry is needed to ensure the rule of law is maintained in Texas courts.

“Brave men and women, your honor, have died for this liberty,” Raley said, arguing emotionally to Judge Harle. “Send a message that the rule of law will be followed in our courts, and that there will be consequences when the rule of law is callously disregarded.”

“I am very pleased that Judge Harle has approved a court of inquiry to get to the bottom of the appalling miscarriage of justice Michael Morton suffered in Williamson County. This may be one of the clearest incidents of prosecutorial misconduct in the last thirty years, so I believe an independent and impartial investigation is what is needed to ensure justice is done.

“I have had the opportunity to review quite a bit of the record in this case and believe the court of inquiry will air the truth and help Mr. Morton receive the justice he deserves.”

###

Ellis also is taking his message of diversity to the bicycling community, which has failed to make significant inroads in communities of color. Today, in San Antonio, he plans to make a case about why the cycling community should be aggressive about getting more minorities on bicycles.

“My message is simple; if you want to build more hike and bike trails, more infrastructure for cycling in urban areas and South Texas then you will need to appeal to the voters who live in those communities and many of them happen to be Hispanic and African American.”

Ellis, who is speaking at the annual Texas Trails and Active Transportation cycling conference hosted by Austin-based Bike Texas, makes good points. Cycling infrastructure is not cheap, and cities, such as Austin and San Antonio, have built it largely by passing bond packages to finance construction of bike lanes, paths, trails and other improvements for cycling.

Voter support for bond packages that included bicycle infrastructure has been widespread in Austin. In November 2010, Austin voters passed $90 million in bonds for streets and mobility projects, which included about $14 million for bike paths, trails and transit infrastructure across the city.

Even in Austin, home to the world’s best-known and perhaps most successful cyclist, the sport has failed to catch fire in minority communities.

“One of Austin’s and the state’s most spectacular bike trails is the (Lady Bird) Lake hike and bike trail,” Ellis said. “But over at Huston-Tillotson University, they aren’t riding bikes.”

Cycling champion Lance Armstrong has been a formidable ambassador for the sport, raising its profile and popularity in Austin and across the country. He is a household name. Not as well-known is another cycling giant, Major Taylor, a world champion American cyclist who more than 100 years ago broke records and the color line when blacks were banned from many cycling clubs and races across the nation. In 1898, Taylor held several world records.

Ellis, also African American and an avid cyclist, believes Taylor’s legacy could stir interest in and raise cycling’s profile among minorities. And that would be a very good thing if it reduces the amount of time children and adults spend watching television or playing video games and gets people doing something fun outdoors. But he also sees cycling as a way to combat obesity and diabetes among minorities who suffer disproportionately from those illnesses.

Nearly 36 percent of Texas African Americans are overweight or obese, and the same is true for Hispanics. That compares with about a quarter of white Texans who are obese. All Texans can benefit from strategies that help manage and control their weight. Being severely overweight increases the risk for other diseases, including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Obesity rates are highest in households with lower incomes and lower in households with incomes greater than $50,000, according to figures from the Texas Department of State Health Services. Among black Texans, a stunning 16.5 percent have been diagnosed with diabetes — twice the rate for Anglo Texans of 8.2 percent. Eleven percent of Hispanics have diabetes, according to state health department figures.

Diet and exercise are important in managing diabetes and obesity and that is a message Ellis wants to drive home with his talks — and bicycle rides — in San Antonio, Houston, Austin and other cities.

Ellis credits cycling with helping to manage his own weight and stress issues. And cycling, he says, is relatively inexpensive because it does not require a gym membership or expensive equipment or fees. Bicycles come in various price ranges, sizes and shapes, including three-wheelers for adults with balance issues. Getting started is easy; call or email Bike Texas for help at 512-476-RIDE or biketexas.org.

The San Antonio court should have created a map that looks more like the ones passed last year by the Legislature, the high court said.

Because the San Antonio court “had the benefit of a recently enacted plan to assist it, the court had neither the need nor the license to cast aside that vital aid,” the Supreme Court said in its opinion.

None of the justices dissented as the court issued its opinion without a stated author. Justice Clarence Thomas, however, wrote a concurring opinion.

“Texas’ duly enacted redistricting plans should govern the upcoming elections,” Thomas said.

He also reiterated the whole court’s opinion to vacate the interim orders of the San Antonio court to use the maps it drew for the 2012 elections.

The San Antonio court had taken it upon itself to draw interim maps for the U.S. House, Texas House and state Senate because of the slow-moving pre-clearance process that has still not concluded in a federal court in Washington, D.C. (Texas and many of other mostly southern states must have any changes to election process approved or “pre-cleared” by the federal government because of a past history of discrimination.)

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott cheered the high court’s opinion today.

The high court’s ruling essentially says that district courts should not be part of the policy-making process, he said. They are “ill-suited” for it, Abbott said, echoing the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Nina Perales, a lawyer for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is suing the state in the San Antonio court, said today that she was not discouraged by the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Perales said she’s pleased that the Supreme Court’s ruling directs the San Antonio court to re-draw the maps and make sure the districts they create comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Based on past testimony from the San Antonio trial, Perales is confident that several of the districts that Legislature created would not be part of the subsequent maps, she said.

The Texas redistricting saga began last year when the GOP-controlled Legislature passed maps that sought to legally bolster Republican representation. As expected, several civil rights groups and other people sued the state in federal court in San Antonio for making maps that they said diluted the minority vote. The San Antonio court held a trial but reserved judgment until another federal court – this one in Washington, D.C. – considered pre-clearing the state’s maps. The Washington court is now in the midst of the trial. But with no decision and looming primaries, which were moved to April 3, the San Antonio court drew interim maps – the same ones the Supreme Court today rejected.

(Austin, Texas)// Yesterday, the state of Texas submitted additional information to the U.S. Department of Justice regarding Senate Bill 14, the so-called “voter ID” bill. Due to Texas’ history of discriminatory voting practices, Texas is subject to Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act, meaning that any change to a voting practice in the state must first be approved – or “precleared” – by the Department of Justice prior to it going into effect.

The information submitted yesterday was in response to the Department of Justice’s repeated attempts to determine the racial background of Texans without photo IDs. In other words, who will be negatively impacted by the new voter ID requirement? The state’s letter concedes that the data it provides is “inaccurate and unreliable” and “highly misleading” due to a number of limitations. As a result, attempts by the Department of Justice to determine whether Senate Bill 14 will have a discriminatory impact are limited by the quality of the data.

It is for this reason that Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) sent an October 10, 2011 letter to the Secretary of State and the State Demographer asking the two agencies to work together to produce the requested data. Unfortunately, this did not take place, and the resulting information submitted to the Department of Justice was, in the state’s own words, “highly misleading.”

“I am extremely disappointed that the state felt comfortable submitting data that even they admit is ‘inaccurate and unreliable’ and ‘highly misleading.’ There should be a higher standard for information that attempts to dispel concerns about voter ID’s likely discriminatory impact,” said Ellis. “Had the state followed my recommendation utilized the State Demographer, I am certain that the Justice Department would have better data to work with.”

“It is obvious that supporters of Voter ID have virtually no reliable data on its impact on minority voters, so it is clear the Justice Department should reject preclearance of the law, just as they have done for South Carolina’s attempt to weaken minority voting rights,” said Ellis.

###

Mayor Annise Parker and state Sen. Rodney Ellis have scheduled a news conference for Thursday on the steps of City Hall at Hermann Square to reintroduce the 60-mile charity bike ride.

The tour, now in its seventh iteration, will return March 18 courtesy of the Apache Corp., which has sponsored the charity ride after a lack of funding caused the event to not happen last year. Proceeds will go to the Houston Parks and Recreation’s city reforestation project, which restores trees lost because of the drought.

An Apache representative said the Houston-based oil and gas company, which just planted its millionth tree in the city and wants to plant 3 million throughout seven states, was willing to sponsor the event if all proceeds could go to the reforestation program.

“We decided that after the drought we should step it up and generate enthusiasm, activity and money (for the program),” said Obie O’Brien, Apache ‘s vice president of government affairs.

Susan Christian, director of the Mayor’s Office of Special Events, said Parker is appreciative of corporate efforts to save the event after economic hardship claimed it last year.

The March marathon is expected to draw upwards of 5,000 participants. It also serves as an official training ride for the Houston-to-Austin BP MS150 in April.

“One of the unique aspects is that it meets the need of a training event for elite riders and at the same time offers the sheer enjoyment of just riding a bike,” Christian said.

The route will begin at City Hall and take riders through several areas including the East End, the Ship Channel, Brady’s Landing, Ellington Airport, Johnson Space Center and Clear Lake.

For information call 832-393-0868 or visit www.houstontx.gov/tourdehouston/

ryan.rockett@chron.com

Mark Sherman, a legal affairs writer with the Associated Press, reported the following:

The justices appeared unsure Monday at arguments over Texas’ electoral districts about whether primary elections could take place in early April or whether legal wrangling between the GOP-dominated state government and minority groups would take longer to resolve.

Several justices lamented the lack of an easy answer in a case being considered on an expedited schedule because of the impending Texas primary, set for April 3 after a judge delayed the vote for a month.

The justices discussed moving the primary date back further to give the courts handling different aspects of the case more time.

“Why can’t this all be pushed back, and wouldn’t that eliminate a lot of the problems we are grappling with in this case?” Justice Samuel Alito asked.

The court agreed last month to hear an emergency challenge by Texas Republicans to court-drawn maps that had been set for the 2012 election cycle. Last year, the GOP-controlled Legislature approved maps for the state’s congressional and legislative districts that Democrats and minority groups argued disenfranchised minority voters.
Because of a history of racial discrimination in voting, Texas is among 16 states required to get federal approval of certain election changes under the Voting Rights Act. Republican leaders asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to quickly approve the Legislature’s maps. The court refused, insisting on holding a trial set for later this month. That prompted federal judges in San Antonio to draw temporary maps for 2012 that were widely seen as favoring Democrats.

At today’s hearing, the Texas attorney general’s office was tasked with convincing the nine justices that the state should get to use the maps approved by the Legislature last year because no federal court has rejected them. A ruling in their favor could compromise a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, legal experts say.

Cameron Joseph with The Hill’s Ballot Box blog wrote:

The justices were clearly unhappy with their options, not wanting to put in place either Republican state legislators’ redistricting map or a state-drawn “bipartisan” map that drew in parts from the GOP map. They seemed to be looking for the solution that would have the least legal and political impact.

“How do you decide between two wrong choices?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts at one point.

Michael Li, a Dallas lawyer who has been blogging about the redistricting saga for months and attended today’s hearing, posted on Twitter a prediction that the Justices will wait for the D.C. trial to complete before issuing a ruling.

“Talking to other people for reaction. Seems to be same. Everyone’s sense is that SCOTUS will punt,” Li tweeted.

If that’s the case, the Supreme Court likely wouldn’t issue a ruling until the end of the month at the earliest, forcing the Texas primary to be moved further later in the year.

Last month, Texas Republicans and Democrats agreed to move the primary from March 6 to April 3 in light of the legal logam. That agreement included plans to hold a second round of candidate filing later this month. That plan may have been too optimistic. An April 3 primary assumes the second round of candidate filling will be completed by Feb. 1, a tough task if the Supreme Court takes weeks to rule instead of days.

The outcome of several Tarrant County races may pivot on how the Supreme Court rules.

Along with the lawyers from his office handling the case on behalf of the state, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott was at today’s hearing. Democrats in attendance included state Rep. Marc Veasey and state Sen. Wendy Davis, both of Fort Worth.

-Aman Batheja

Read more here: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/politex/2012/01/supreme-court-hearing-on-texas-redistricting-concludes-report-of-justices-appearing-unsure.html#storylink=cpy

For years, he would roll in like a thundercloud with ideas to modernize the justice system, and lawmakers would run for cover. Why vote for an Ellis bill, they figured, if it ends up making you look wimpy on crime?

Slowly, over 21 years in the Senate, the Houston Democrat won converts, and reforms came grudgingly, including a convict’s limited right to get evidence tested for DNA.

One stubborn obstacle remained. As evidence piled up of cops, prosecutors and juries making ghastly mistakes and sending innocent men to prison, a common cause emerged: flawed eyewitness identification. Yet starting in 2005, Ellis hit a wall on making reforms, and things didn’t look much more promising as 2011 began.

“But the case has become so compelling, because the exonerations don’t stop,” said Ellis, a lawyer. “Each exoneration becomes a teachable moment.”

Ellis has become a master of stagecraft on the issue, inviting exonerees to Austin, introducing them to lawmakers and skeptical police brass and prosecutors. Those heinously wronged, innocent men — some of them freed from prison only days or weeks before — became instant lobbyists for the cause. It was impossible to stare them in the face, Ellis said, and defend the status quo.

Ellis also had an ally who developed a fire for reform in the House, Rep. Pete Gallego, from the Big Bend country. A former prosecutor, the veteran Democrat had a new strategy this year: move bills out of his criminal justice committee early and get the distractible House to act before it stampeded in directions unknown.

Gallego also got buy-in from key Republicans, including Rep. Will Hartnett of Dallas, where most of the state’s nation-leading number of DNA exonerations have been recorded.

“I’ve seen a slow and gradual shift from ‘Our system does no wrong’ to an acknowledgement that the system has flaws,” Gallego said. “This is the session that the light bulb went on.”

Yes, it did. The House vote was 144-1 to require police to adopt accepted standards for eyewitness lineups. The Senate voted 31-0. Gov. Rick Perry signed the landmark bill June 17.

This year’s Legislature passed other reforms, including Ellis bills to expand access to DNA tests and improve compensation for the wrongly convicted.

The effort took tactical brilliance, political savvy and an evangelist’s zeal. For that, Ellis and Gallego are finalists for 2011 Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year.

Gallego, 50, is moving on politically, seeking a congressional seat from his base in Alpine.

Ellis, 57, who also serves as board chair of the Innocence Project of New York, plans to return to Austin to continue work on modernizing the court system. Not that he thinks the job is ever going to be a picnic.

“It’s not an easy vote,” Ellis said, “but it helps when you’re right.”

Valero Energy Corp. is the first of what could be many companies requesting tax exemptions for installing sulfur-removing hydrotreaters at Texas refineries.

In 1993, voters approved an amendment to the state constitution exempting companies that install pollution control equipment from paying ad valorem taxes on the equipment.

Besides 10 requests from Valero, 11 similar requests are pending with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, agency spokesman Terry Clawson said. If the commission approves the tax break, various school officials fear, Texas schools could be out tens of millions in funding. The impact would likely be felt most by the school districts in South and West Texas where the refineries are.

“We understand what is at stake for the school districts and our children’s education,” Valero Chairman and CEO Bill Klesse said in September. “Our children’s education is extremely important, but it is also important to have a fair property appraisal. Even after our exemption is granted, Valero will remain one of the largest taxpayers — if not the largest taxpayer — in all the areas where we have refineries.”

Valero’s exemption request was initially rejected by the commission’s staff, which reported that hydrotreaters don’t reduce pollution at the refinery, but rather when consumers use fuel from refineries.

“The environmental benefit of these projects occurs when the consumer uses the low sulfur content fuels,” commission staffer Ronald Hatlett wrote in 2007. “These projects do not provide an environmental benefit at the site.”

The agency’s commissioners asked staffers to take another look at the exemption. Clawson could not say Friday when the commission might make a final decision.

Because the exemption wasn’t rejected outright when the agency reported objections to it, critics have said the energy industry’s political might is influencing the decision.

“With Texas schools already facing cuts of more than $5 billion over the next two years, we cannot afford to allow political maneuvering to bleed even more resources from our children’s classrooms,” state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, said last week. “Favors to political cronies should never be allowed, particularly where they trump the interests of Texas’ schoolchildren.”

Clawson rejected any notion that agency Chairman Bryan Shaw was acting unethically.

“While Dr. Bryan Shaw is an appointee of the governor, he bases his decisions on sound science and the law,” Clawson said. “To suggest anything else is inaccurate.”

Last week, Davis and state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, requested an official opinion from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on whether state law allows the agency to approve tax exemptions for equipment that does not provide on-site environmental benefits.

Estimates from August place the drought’s financial impact on our agricultural industry at more than $5.2 billion, and half of Texas’ rivers are flowing at 10 percent or less of their normal rate. Elsewhere, disastrous flooding and wildfires affect regions across the globe, as extreme weather events occur much more regularly than in the past.

Climate change is the most important moral issue of our time, affecting people across all dividing lines. While there may still be some disagreement as to the precise level of human impact on climate change and specific projected regional effects, that debate must not prevent us from actively preparing to meet the oncoming challenges. The potential costs of not acting now far outweigh the known costs of planning ahead.

In recognition of the need to act, I am proud to be joining international economic, business and political leaders gathering to discuss critical issues surrounding the global environment at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa. I am attending as part of the official delegation of the Commission to Engage African Americans on Climate Change, for which I serve as the co-chair. The 17th annual Conference of Parties is focusing on efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change and developing a framework that can lead to cuts in greenhouse gases.

Despite the acknowledgment that urgent action is required, there is some pessimism about what will officially be achieved in Durban. Stalemates between developed and developing countries and a resistance to making firm commitments has lowered expectations.

In the face of this uncertainty in the international community, Texas has all the more reason to plan for the changes ahead. With the world already getting hotter, policymakers at all levels of government, not just internationally, must commit to ongoing preparations. This is certainly true here in Texas.

Texas State Climatologist Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon of Texas A&M University’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences wrote that it would be “irresponsible not to plan for the possibility that the locked-in warming due to greenhouse gas increases will come to pass.” Whether Texans believe the rising temperatures are caused primarily by humans or natural cycles is immaterial. In order to face higher temperatures, heavier storms, loss of coastline and more severe droughts, Texas needs to start getting ready.

The past two sessions, I have filed legislation requiring key state agencies to make plans to adapt to changes in the climate in coming years. Each climate adaptation plan would include specific steps necessary for the agency to fulfill its mission considering climate variation, as well as the budgetary impacts of implementing these steps.

Far too often, governments must dramatically reassess their approach to disaster planning only after the disasters have occurred. While advance planning will not prevent the changes from occurring, it will help mitigate some of the most significant consequences of global warming. This is greatly preferable to the head-in-the-sand approach taken by some in our state. Censoring scientific data when it does not fit your political worldview, for example, will only serve to harm Texas in the long run.

Climate change is a complex international issue that must be addressed by governments worldwide, but Texas has too much at stake not to start preparing for changes that are inevitable. It’s time for Texas to step up and meet that challenge.

Ellis represents a Houston district in the state Senate.