The Dew Links Rules Change to Voter ID
In his post-session Q and A with reporters, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst predicted that proposals for changing the Texas Senate’s two-thirds rule will evaporate if senators find middle ground on the Voter ID bill. “With agreement on that issue, it (a rules change) becomes moot,” he said.
In fact, each time reporters asked about changing Senate rules for debate, Dewhurst went directly to the Voter ID issue. No segue. It sounded like this:
Reporters: ”What’s the status of the two-thirds rule?”
Dewhurst: “The Voter ID bill really isn’t a hard issue to solve. It’s really not that controversial.”
You gotta stay on your toes with this guy.
Anyway, Dewhurst insisted that proponents of voter ID ”don’t want to disenfranchise anybody.” He also suggested that a phase-in of Voter ID — over a “two year to four year” period — might make its implementation easier.
“I see general support for continuation of the two-thirds rule,” he added.
Moments later, Sen. Dan Patrick expressed optimism about his proposal that the Senate adopt a “three-fifths” rule (moving the threshold from 21 to 19 votes before legislation can be debated). The current two-thirds means the Senate dodges debates on “tough issues,” he said. Noting he was “the lone ranger” for a rules change last session, he told reporters he sensed more willingness among senators to discuss it.
Unlike Dewhurst, Patrick wants a permanent change and does not link it to any issue.”If the D’s had the majority, I’d still support three-fifths (vote to approve debate),” he said.
Senate rules can be adopted with support of a simple majority. So at least for tomorrow, only one number matters: 16.
Tagged: dan patrick, david dewhurst, senate two-thirds rule, three-fifths, voter ID
Ben Quick says:
Sorry to contradict you, but the number for tomorrow and all times remains 21.
//you have to have a quorum
Reply »
anon says:
Paul,
There are others very interested/supportive of the change from 21 to 19 for different but obvious reasons. Considering Speaker Straus is highly unlikely to be receptive to any gambling legislation that has not passed the Senate first, it is obvious that reducing the threshold in an already tight gambling vote in the Senate is clever, thoughout, and more than likely planned.
In June of 2008 the infamous Texans for Economic Development PAC ironically enough gave $10k to exactly 19 senators. Dan Patrick, Chris Harris, Carlos Uresti, Royce West, Rodney Ellis, Mike Jackson, Mario Gallegos, Letticia Van de Putte, Kirk Watson, Kip Averitt, Kel Seliger, Judith Zaffirinni, Juan Hinojosa, John Whitmire, John Carona, Jeff Wentworth, Glen Hegar, Eliot Shapleigh, Eddie Lucio…. 19 Senators…. a strange number at the time, but not anymore…
Reply »
Spiro Eagleton says:
Texas Democrat just predicted that the Democrats will have all 31 seats in the Texas senate in 6 years.
Reply »
Burka's Research Assistant says:
Were all the Republicans wiped out in an atomic bomb?
Reply »
Knit one Pearl two says:
Texas Democrat is obviously smoking crack and needs to check into that drug treatment clinic in Malibu with the rest of those out of touch with reality crackheads.
Reply »
Tamsterbath says:
Where is the Texas Democrat source?
Reply »
Patricia Kilday Hart says:
In response to Ben Quick, who believes the 21 vote rule holds for adoption of rules…I got my information from the Q&A session reporters had with Patrick; but I just checked QR and Harvey is reporting the same thing. So I guess we’ll find out tomorrow who’s right.
Reply »
Ben Quick Reply:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:22 am
no – my comment is to a quorum – you always have to have 21 before you can do anything
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Patricia:
I think what Ben Quick was trying to say is that the Senate cannot meet without 2/3rds of its members present. That means that should they choose to do so, the Democrats can prevent a vote on changing the 2/3rds rule, or or anything else for that matter, simply by denying the Senate a Quorum.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 13th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
exactly
Reply »
Buck says:
The 2/3 number changes depending how many are there — 20 of 30, for example.
Reply »
Patricia Kilday Hart says:
Aha moment here. Thanks for the clarification.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis says:
Voter ID is not that complicated.
Voter registration once took some time to process because we didn’t have computers. It took time to sort through all the paperwork.
Computers make voter registration pointless. Any eligible voter should be allowed to cast a ballot by showing up at a polling place with some acceptable form of ID.
YOu then run the ID to make sure the person lives in the appropriate precinct, etc. Think in terms of instant background check.
This would satisfy GOP concerns about ballot security and election integrity.
Democrats would have to be OK with this because all eligible voters could participate so long as they properly ID themselves – which becomes necessary without prior registration.
Voter registration efforts would be scrapped and everyone could concentrate on get-on-the-vote. Democracy is a big winner.
Of course, if GOPers balk at this then we know their main concern is not really ballot security and election integrity. It’s really a matter of voter suppression – which is never healthy in any vibrant democracy.
If Democrats balk at this, then they are simply stupid.
Instead of a win-lose, you could turn voter ID into a win-win.
Which is probably why it won’t work in Texas.
Reply »
texun Reply:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Running the identification would seem like a sensible procedure, unless you have observed the general ineptitude at a fair number of precincts. It could slow down the voting process greatly, even if they are bar-coded and machine readable.
Reply »
Frisky Dingo says:
Note to Republicans:
Be careful what you wish for, because one day people who you currently oppose may have it. I don’t think the D’s will command the Senate any time soon, but there will be a point where the numbers will change.
Another note: whenever you try to change the rules to help your cause — i.e. suspend habeas corpus, change the 2/3rds rule — you look bad.
Reply »
asmith says:
If the state would phase it in over 2-4 years and provide either more DPS offices/one stop shop places, or give all texans access to ids this wouldnt be a problem.
I have a feeling that it will be more of the Georgia/Indiana voter id model, which was well meaning but disenfranchised people.
Reply »
Calculatin' Coke says:
Back in Coke’s time, Texas had “white primaries.” It took Smith v Allwright in 1943(!), which overturned Texas’ law specifically banning African Americans from voting in the Democratic primary, to right grevious wrong. Voter purges are still practiced today. We bear the fruits, sour and sweet, of our predecessors. Texas must go “beyond the pale” to allow all living citizens to vote.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Did anyone notice how well Straus was handled by the ABCs at the swearing in? I mean, the guy couldn’t make a move without one of the ABCs being right in his face!
After seeing that act on the House floor I firmly believe that we have a Speakership by Committee and Straus is nothing more than a figurehead.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Tellnitlikeitis saya:
“Of course, if GOPers balk at this then we know their main concern is not really ballot security and election integrity. It’s really a matter of voter suppression – which is never healthy in any vibrant democracy.”
Voter suppression is high on the GOP list, but will have to wait it’s turn until we usher in the theocracy that is out true dream. We have begun this dream by having our agents infiltrate the Office of the President Elect and arranging for Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inarguation. This is the first step towards a total top to bottom governmental takeover by the theological right and the purging of all so-called “persons of faith” who do not believe in the literal truth of the King James Bible.
We will get back to you on voter suppression, but rest assured that our government in exile led by Karl Rove will ensure that someday only those whose votes are truly worthy will be counted.
Reply »
texun says:
As far as I know, the GOP has not demonstrated that ballot security is a serious problem in Texas. Perhaps they’d rather have the American Vulture Forum issue voter id’s, that would be right up Dan Patrick’s alley.
Reply »
Texas Democrat says:
Dewhurst knows that pushing the Voter ID crap will cause a backlash from minorities in the next election, considering that he’s up for reelection in 2010.
Plus the Obama Justice Dept. will go after the TX GOP very aggressively to make sure there is no discrimination against the elderly and minority voters.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:53 am
RE: “Dewhurst knows that pushing the voter ID crap will cause a backlash from minorities in the next election, considering that he’s up for reelection in 2010.”
do you mean he’s worried that all those minorities that were going to vote for him now won’t? I dont think that’s his worry. It’s kinda why they’re pushing voter ID.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Voter ID is popular among average folks…tough issue for the Ds to demagogue on should Dewhurst get this through.
I know Ds want this because they benefit from a certain number of questionable votes…but it doesn’t seem to me like an unreasonable hurdle for a person to prove who they are in order to vote. After all, every non-citizen who votes effectively disenfranchises a citizen who voted the other way.
Reply »
WTX Reply:
January 14th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
But why would anyone want to put any hurdle in place that makes it more difficult for people to vote? With voter turnout as low as it is, why make it more difficult and frustrating?? Also, there is little substantiated evidence to indicate that non-citizens are voting in Texas.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I’m not too worried about this causing a great rift people will remember when the Democrats take control of the Senate.
In two years, the LRB will make mincemeat out of Whitmire’s seat and Senator Watson may find fresh truckloads of Republicans added to his district from West Texas or Williamson County. And Senator Wendy should get lots of photos of her time in the Senate, the LRB will make it a brief stay.
No, by the time the D’s are back in charge there won’t be a single member of the current Senate left in the Senate. And the Voter ID 3/5′s rule will be a historical footnote.
Reply »