AUSTIN – A state district judge struck down a state fee on patrons of strip clubs Friday, invalidating a measure designed to raise money for sexual assault victims and people without health insurance.
The strip club fee was intended to raise money for sexual assault services and health insurance for the poor. A district judge’s decision indicates the bill was too broad.
Travis County Judge Scott Jenkins called the $5 cover charge – which state lawmakers passed overwhelmingly last year – unconstitutional, and said it taxed “expression that, while politically unpopular, is nevertheless protected by the First Amendment.”
Attorney General Greg Abbott, representing the state, plans to “vigorously appeal” the ruling, a spokesman said. And at least one Dallas club owner said she’s not ready to go out and celebrate.
“The rest of them are ready to throw a big party, but I don’t think this is over,” said Dawn Rizos, who owns the Lodge, an upscale Dallas club. “They’re going to rewrite it, and eventually it will pass.”
Officials with the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, which helped craft the measure, said they are very disappointed by the decision but intend to rework the bill when lawmakers return to Austin in January.
“This is not the end of the adult entertainment fee or of our goal of providing comprehensive sexual assault-related services to Texans,” spokeswoman Karen Amacker said.
Representatives from the Texas Entertainment Association, which filed the lawsuit and represents more than half of the topless clubs in the state, said they’d continue to fight any fee “unconstitutionally imposed” on them.
“I doubt they’ll be able to overcome the First Amendment issue,” said Stewart Whitehead, the entertainment association’s attorney.
The fee, which lawmakers passed last spring and which took effect in January, was expected to raise about $40 million per year, to be divided between sexual assault services and health insurance for the poor. No money had been collected yet, because the first payments from clubs were not due until April.
Supporters saw a glimmer of hope in Judge Jenkins’ ruling. His judgment indicates the bill was too broad. While he was convinced that there was a logical connection between adult clubs and funding sexual assault services, he didn’t buy it for funding health insurance.
“There is no evidence that combining alcohol with nude erotic dancing causes dancers to be uninsured, that any dancer is in fact uninsured, or that any uninsured dancer could qualify for assistance from the fund,” he said.
It’s a frustrating irony for lawmakers who backed the bill: They tacked on the health insurance funding in part to make the measure more politically palatable.