Step 1: Introduce bill
Step 2: Pass through committee
Step 3: Calendars committee
Step 4: House vote
Step 5: Senate vote
Step 6: Governor’s sig

You can see we still have a long ways to go, but Steps 4 and 5 have to be done for sure by May 23, so this is it … we’re about to see if our hard work first steps in the process properly position us to make it through the next all-important three. And by all means, we have to go undefeated … one loss and we’re dead.

Go here or here to send the whole House of Representatives an email letting them know you hear they’ll be voting on HB 222, and that you will really admire them for seeing the sensibility of this legislation.

Meanwhile, as a reminder why this bill is important, RobD in Austin lets us know:

To put a final nail into the coffin of [any] argument against HB222, I was at a Austin poker game last night and we got robbed at gun point (5/7/09, early morning). It was in a nice neighborhood and is known to regulars as FPC. At least two people got beat up. We’re all lucky to be alive. The Travis county sherrif was called and filed a report.

Player safety, protection from shady games, capitalist personal freedom not real enough issues to vote on?

I might be extra-sensitive because, frankly, the bill seems to be stalling in Calendars Committee. Why that is, I’m not sure … they’ve heard our message, they know it has passable support … throw an amendment on if you need to, but c’mon … put us on the agenda already! I’m a little removed from what’s going on in Austin during this hectic part of the Session, but I’m pretty sure if we don’t move the bill forward in like the next -2 days, we might be in trouble … Just sitting there for like two weeks seems odd, assuming it’s ready for a simple yay or nay. I suppose it’s possible we’re getting Fristed somewhere in the process. Or, perhaps they’re just having a sincere intellectual dilemma, inspired by Amy Calistri’s question:

Why Do I Want to Pay a Rake?

Why is the PPA wasting time feigning a “grass roots” issue over a Texas bill whose only beneficiary is commercial poker – in a state where poker is unquestionably legal? … It doesn’t exactly meet my definition of fighting the good fight. I mean, even the banking lobby doesn’t ask me to petition my legislators for higher ATM fees. And they can be shameless.

[OK, deep breath, find peace ... no tilt]

Amy raises some fair questions, which deserve answers. Yes, indeed. [Breathe]

First though, allow me to defend the PPA (full disclosure: card-carrying member): I think it’s hardly “feigning” a grass-roots movement when the PPA, over the years, has built a well-connected network of state directors, who are in a position to say, “Hey, we’ve got a real fight here!” — like a bill moving through the Legislature (which 90 percent of the states out there can’t say) — to which the national headquarters is ready to respond with some assistance … like sending out emails and setting up a special website to allow people to communicate with their elected officials. How is that a bad use of resources? Shouldn’t members be more bothered if such a state fight was going on and the PPA didn’t get involved? Maybe I’m just ignorant and optimistically cosmopolitan, believing the whole world has an interest in seeing Texas “legalize” poker …

OK, so back to her fair question … We all know the arguments and basic math behind how much money can be raked on the state’s behalf — pretty much just look at WinStar and multiply by 15 + Texas. But I’ll admit, that’s just the politics of HB 222, not the principle, because really it is easier to say, “Hey, this bill will generate money, not cost any.” But where would that money come from? The players, of course … and that’s where Amy raises her question about why she should want to patronize a for-profit poker operation when she can play at home for free.

My answers:

1. Because. Why shouldn’t I have the right, theoretically, if I were a legal, licensed operator, to rake my game (within the bounds established by law)? You tell me your legal, un-raked multitable home game is pretty good, and I’m sure it is. I’d love to play, can you get me in, along with 100 of my friends? Because if not, we’d like to have the option to go to Lone Star, where they might be running a 7 pm tourney. That doesn’t hurt your game does it? Cool, because if someone thinks they can throw a better game using a for-profit business model that charges the patrons, shouldn’t they have the right to do so? It is just poker, after all, not drugs or puppy-skinning. And letting the market decide where people play for what price … that’s just capitalism.

2. Protect and Serve. I’ve had dozens of friends and poker colleagues robbed at gunpoint. A few shots have been fired. Because they’re playing a game, and hosts are not allowed to hire off-duty police officers for security. Shouldn’t a game — your game even — have the right to protect its players how it sees fit? We’ve had one guy killed already (Arlington) and even a birthday tournament at suburban micromansion (Cedar Hill) has been robbed at gunpoint, in front of the wife and kids, no less! What’s so wrong with giving these players — or people simply living in bad neighborhoods — a safer option that requires no clean-up? Or more specifically, what’s right about not allowing such a place to exist? We’re not talking about opium dens and needle exchange programs, we’re talking about clarifying the law in a way that reduces the chance of a good wage-earning, tax-paying, family-man (or a hot soccer mom) finds themselves at the wrong end of a 1/2 No-Limit gun barrel.

3. Police and Courts would Appreciate the Help. Right now, law enforcement has to expend resources busting games and tie up the court system with misdemeanors that prosecutors would rather not have to deal with, knowing the current laws in place aren’t enough for them to rely on for a conviction. That is why so many law enforcement agencies and officials have given at least a tacit thumbs-up to regulated brick-and-mortar poker in Texas. Again, this shouldn’t affect Amy’s game at all … but should she not allow others the option to pay a rake, then she is tacitly telling the cops and DAs that she doesn’t really care about your time and fiscal resources.

4. The People Want More Stephenvilles. The Cowboy Capital tourney was a huge success, as it always is, revealing just how many truck-driving, church-going white people love to get together every so often for a big poker competition. The people involved in this event are fortunate to have a non-profit host willing to put on a good time for a few hundred of his friends at a loss. But few can afford to do this. Offering legally raked games in Texas would allow for more of these events, which Amy’s home game is simply too small to handle.

5. The Handicapped. Residential home games don’t have to be ADA compliant, and therefore the handicapped are plausibly excluded from enjoying the same activity as Amy and her best poker friends. This would not be a problem, though, if these valuable (and lovable!) physically challenged citizens could play at their nearest horse track or Indian casino.

So there you have it … five good reasons for HB 222 that don’t even take into account all the revenue generation our politicos are promising or bore you with comparisons to competitive, raked fishing tournaments. I’m sure there are other reasons that I’ve overlooked, too, and these still may not answer directly why any particular Texan should want to pay a rake … but preventing a Texan from having the sensible-to-them option of doing so? Well, at least as it pertains to poker, that’s just Oklahoman.

Look, we’ve got a good bill ready to be voted on … now all we need is our representatives to do their part and let the State have a respectable debate to determine if we can allow such a thing as Texas Hold’em tournament with an entry fee in a way that doesn’t harm those who don’t wish to pay it.

(Note to self: politics is hard.)

But politics is about compromise — I truly believe that the more I learn about the game — not to mention perception of intent. Our opponents apparently didn’t have a problem with poker so much as they did with the amount of poker we were trying to make possible in this bill. So as we speak/type/read, Austin politicos are “ratcheting back” HB 222. If you were a bar owner hoping to get your hands on a license for some live or electronic tables … well sorry, you’re out of luck. The slimmed-down poker bill the Calendars Comittee will (hopefully, fingers crossed) be sending to the House floor in coming days will allow for poker only at parimutuel race tracks and on Indian Reservations.

OK, imho, we can definitely live with that. And great to hear that any opposition is working with us, not against us, in pursuit of a win-win for poker and the people of Texas. Because that’s really what it’s all about, right?

(C’mon river …)

If you haven’t done so already, be sure to let them know that you’d really like to see our issues — HB 222 — put to a vote on the House floor so poker players from the great state of Texas can finally have their say.

Here’s the new link:

http://legalizepokerintexas.com/?issues=HB222

Click that, and you’ll see a button for “calendars committee” … click that, too, and it will instacheck the right people … so then, all you have to do is press send. You are, of course, welcome to customize the message to your personal liking.

We’re almost there, gang … we’re driving down the field … we need this first down.

McCall

Rep. Brian McCall (R-Plano) — He’s the chair, so he has the power to make our lives difficult. He’s also a very moderate Republican … so he’s open to our ideas, but you may recall we (poker people) unpleasantly bumped heads with him back in 2007. He doesn’t respond well to threats of not voting for him because he won’t go a certain way on a single issue. So the key with McCall is to let him know that yes, this may be a single issue that matters to you personally, but really it might well matter to Texans who don’t even play poker — because of the revenue it stands to generate, the police and DA resources it stands to free up, the state-pride freedom it represents, and the protection it offers citizens who are attending unsafe underground games or even being robbed in their own homes.

Again, all we are really asking is that they help make sure this issue gets a vote — that’s all we want! — so we can see if indeed the voice of the people lines up with everything polls and anecdotal opinions are telling us.

McCall is also on the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism committee … so any of you influential non-Texans who might want to let him now what legal poker in Texas could bring to the state beyond just poker rooms, he’s likely to be receptive to that idea.

Ritter

McReynolds

Two others that may need some extra arm-twisting: Rep. Allan Ritter (D-Beaumont/Port Arthur/Nederland) and Rep. Jim McReynolds (D-Lufkin). These guys are conservative Democrats in tough districts, so they may be wary of losing votes. Ritter is also on the Technology, Economic Development, and Workforce committee … so stress the jobs angle with him. And McReynolds is chair of the Corrections committee … so knowing HB 222 would make life easier on police and prosecutors will likely carry some weight with him.

Here’s the easy email-Congress link. C’mon poker players … we aren’t just scatter-shooting here and hoping for the best. Now is the time. We flopped a set but flush and straight draws are out there … it’s time to push.

Will probably end with something reminding them that this is a perfect example of the kind of sensible government legislation that will show our representatives are capable of looking beyond any controversial rhetoric and doing the right thing … and hey, if we get a vote and we’re wrong, we’ll stop with the email barrages. After all, this IS a grass-roots effort by the people, which makes it very different from the big-money casino bills pending … and they should recognize that.

But really — because this is grass roots and we don’t have the money to pay for a lobbyist to be glad-handing in the back hallways on behalf of HB 222 — we need you Texas-loving folks to get to work over the next 24 hours. (We’ll probably call on you two more times over the course of the next month). We need to hit them up and hit them hard … this is where we got to in 2007, and we did convince them to put us on the calendar, but not high up enough to ever get to a vote on the House floor.

Honestly, for the whole process, it hasn’t been more “on us” than it is right now. Here’s the link to the easy-email generator for Texas poker legislation.

Specifically, the people you should be sending this go-round to (with district # in parentheses) are:

Brian McCall (66) – Chair
Eddie Lucio III (38) – Vice-chair

Norma Chavez (76)
Garnet Coleman (147)
Byron Cook (8)
Brandon Creighton (16)
Charlie Geren (99)
Jim Keffer (60)
Lois Kolkhorst (13)
Edmund Kuempel (44)
Jim McReynolds (12)
Allan Ritter (21)
Burt Solomons (65)