Maybe the times are a-changin’ in the Texas House if legislators are willing to challenge Michael Quinn Sullivan. Win or lose, the ethics complaints lodged against Sullivan by two committee chairs, Vicki Truitt and Jim Keffer, are a shot across the bow and an indication that Sullivan’s detractors are not going to allow him to push around members without his paying a price. Human nature being what it is, however, I suspect that most legislators are telling Truitt and Keffer, “We’re behind you all the way,” and that’s exactly where they’ll stay–discreetly behind them. Very discreetly.

From the Associated Press story, by Chris Tomlinson:

“Taken together, the ethics complaints filed against Empower Texans and Michael Quinn Sullivan reveal violations of important state ethics laws designed to let the public find out who’s lobbying and what they’re spending, and what special interests are spending money to help or hurt candidates,” Keffer said. “When lobbyists don’t register and file reports, and when powerful organizations spend money on campaigns but don’t report it, they hide their true identities and conceal their activities from the public.”

The complaint charges that Sullivan failed to register as a lobbyist and that his organization failed to file a required campaign finance form. Sullivan, who flatly denies the allegations and dismisses them as a “political stunt,” controls three entities, Empower Texans;  Texans for Fiscal Responsibility; and Empower Texans Foundation.

What we don’t know is whether this is a single shot at Sullivan, or the beginning of a campaign to discredit him. I will say this: If I were in MQS’s shoes, I wouldn’t want Truitt and Keffer breathing down my neck. They are tough and fearless adversaries, and if they are out to take him down, I wouldn’t bet against them.

Tagged: jim keffer, michael quinn sullivan, vicki truitt

The 20th edition of the “Best & Worst Legislators” story is complete. Yesterday we posted, on Twitter and on this blog, the names of the ten Best, the ten Worst, the Bull of the Brazos, and the Rookie of the Year. Today the write-ups for all of these 22 members are available online. The full story, including honorable and dishonorable mentions, furniture, and the very special features that mark the 20th edition of the story will be available in the magazine, which will begin reaching subscribers this weekend, and on our website next week.

I have been involved in nineteen of the twenty previous articles, and I cannot recall a more difficult year when it came to selecting the members on both lists. This was a session without heroes. All the usual jokes about naming 5 Bests and 15 Worsts were on point, for a change. The budget dominated everything, with the result that there were few major bills. I count three: Truitt’s effort to regulate payday loans; Ritter’s attempt to get funding for the state water plan (one of several occasions on which Perry could have exercised leadership for the state’s future but did not); and Keffer’s bill regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale formations. The rest was noise. Particularly cacophonous was the governor’s “emergency” agenda, which consisted of nothing but red meat for Republicans. Republicans got to vote on abortion, immigration, voter fraud, tort reform, and, shades of the fifties, state’s rights. Democrats got to vote no a lot. Even the major Sunset bills didn’t seem to generate any interest. You could look out across the House floor during any debate and see few members engaged.

The House Republican caucus was a curious organism. Its members preferred to vote as a block, as if they lived in fear that their age-old enemies, the Democrats, might perhaps be resuscitated to offer a scintilla of opposition. The group-think voting was reminiscent of the refrain sung by the “Monarch of the Sea” in Gilbert and Sullivan’s HMS Pinafore: “I grew so rich that I was sent/by a pocket borough into Parliament/I always voted at my party’s call/and never thought of thinking for myself at all.” The anemic Democratic caucus, meanwhile, mustered up occasional resistance, mostly with parliamentary maneuvers, but the D’s were so outnumbered, and so demoralized by their election rout, that they never seemed to have a leader or a plan. Not that it would have made any difference. (more…)

Tagged: best and worst legislators, jim keffer, John Zerwas, judith zaffirini, rick perry, robert duncan, Steve Ogden, vicki truitt, wendy davis

[I have recovered some material I lost from the original post]

It’s Jim Landtroop.

1. He’s a freshman.

2. He supported Paxton for speaker.

3. He cast one of the fifteen votes against Straus for speaker

4. He represents a part of the state that is hemorrhaging population.

5. He has nowhere to go to pick up extra people.

6. He’s a hard-right conservative

7. He has already been marginalized by his committee assignments (Agriculture & Livestock, Defense & Veterans’ Affairs), although Ag is important in his district.

Landtroop has one of the most oddly shaped districts. It is essentially a cross, seven counties from north to south, five from east to west, with appendages on the east side. He is landlocked by savvy veteran members who play important roles in the House: Chisum on the north; Hardcastle, Darby, and Keffer on the east; Hilderbran on the south; and Craddick and Charles Perry on the west. Perry is a Landtroop clone: tea-party type, hard-right conservative, poor committee assignments, supported Paxton for speaker, voted against Straus. You could flip a coin and let the winner have the seat without affecting the House at all. My bet is that Lubbock will get the seat in the end.

Tagged: charles perry, drew darby, harvey hilderbran, jim keffer, Jim Landtroop, Joe Straus, Ken Paxton, Rick Hardcastle, tom craddick, warren chisum

Yesterday (Wednesday) was a tough day for TxDOT. After the usual routine of resolutions congratulating this and that, and welcoming these and those, the House session ended with a resolution aimed squarely at the transportation agency. Dunnam, Coleman, and other lawmakers are unhappy that TxDOT rushed to decide how to use its $1.2 billion in stimulus funding without consulting with the stimulus committee — even though the federal law allows the agency 120 days (until June 17) to obligate half of the money. TxDOT decided on February 26 to use $500 million for maintenance projects and announced its intention to allocate the rest of the money today.

One of the things that has lawmakers upset is that TxDOT plans to use $841 million of the $1.2 billion for toll road projects. Toll roads are not popular, and lawmakers fear that they will feel the heat. By obligating the money immediately, TxDOT was able to cut the Legislature out of the process.

Speaking to the House on Tuesday, Dunnam noted that TxDOT obligated the maintenance money without giving any indication of following the mandates of the federal legislation to consider distressed areas and maximization of new jobs. Coleman ran with his resolution on Wednesday, which ended with a sharp rebuke of TxDOT: “[The House] declares that the failure of the commission and the department to conduct the people’s business in a fair, open, and accountable manner has lost them the confidence of the House and of the people of Texas.” (Some would say that TxDOT had lost that confidence years ago.) Phil King and Jim Keffer decided that this was too inflammatory, and Coleman pulled the resolution down.

It wasn’t clear exactly what the lawmakers were trying to accomplish, but TxDOT’s defenders were concerned that what some legislators wanted wasn’t just a slower timetable. It was earmarks: specific transportation projects for their districts. Apparently TxDOT was getting pressure from members. This is bad business–and, to be fair to Coleman, he was the first to say so. We don’t want to go back to the days when lawmakers assembled local delegations to lobby TxDOT and kiss the ring in hopes of getting pet projects built–as opposed to TxDOT’s taking on projects in the order of their priority and affordability.

TxDOT won the battle, but the big war has yet to be fought. That, of course, is the TxDOT Sunset bill, which poor Isett is going to have to carry (by choice) in the face of a surly House. This episode was one more indication of the considerable antagonism toward TxDOT in the Legislature, which runs deep for reason such as an exchange that took place in the stimulus committee. Carole Kent asked if a particular project was a toll road, and the TxDOT witness said no. That was not a true answer. The project involved managed lanes–which are tolled. Episodes like this explain why TxDOT has lost the confidence of the Legislature, and why the antangonism it generates is not going to go away.

Tagged: garnet coleman, jim dunnam, jim keffer, phil king, Rob eissler, stimulus funding, toll roads, txdot

As most readers know, Jim Keffer has proposed several reforms for the House of Representatives, and Dan Gattis has proposed a constitutional amendment to provide a means of removing the speaker. Let’s see whether they have merit.

First, the constitutional amendment: Gattis would add this language to the boilerplate about the House electing a speaker:

The House of Representatives by rule may provide for the removal of the Speaker by a vote of two-thirds of the members elected to the House.

I would oppose this if I were a member of the House. First, I am not willing to concede that the House does not already have the inherent power to remove the speaker. When the rules do not speak clearly to an issue, they provide that resort may be had to congressional precedents, and those precedents do recognize a motion to vacate the chair. Second, while it is well established that the House may provide for its own rules, I think it is a bad idea for a rule dealing with an issue as fundamental as the removal of a speaker to be ephemoral. One year the House may include it and the next year it may omit it. That is the nature of the rules. We all know that the speaker influences the writing of the rules, and if the House MAY provide for removal of the speaker, what speaker is going to allow the rules to provide for his own demise? Third, Gattis set the bar too high. One hundred votes is insurmountable. Fifty-one votes can block it, and there are 42 committee chairs and twenty-six members of Appropriations and eight members of Calendars (not counting the chairs of these committees).  I think it should be 76 votes. That is the number necessary to elect a speaker. Why should it be harder to remove the speaker than to elect him? It is a lot easier to stay speaker than to be elected speaker. All you have to do is preside in a reasonably even-handed way. Craddick hasn’t been able to do that, and that’s why he’s in trouble. But there are circumstances other than overreaching in which being able to oust the speaker by majority vote might be important. Suppose, for example, that the Democrats win a 76-74 majority of the House in 2010, but that two seats become vacant and Republicans win the special elections. Should the Democratic speaker continue to preside when the majority has changed? The Republicans should be able to vote the speaker out and take control. 76 votes.

Now for the Keffer reforms:

* Apportion the leadership position by party “in proportion to the parties representation in the House and [to] reflect the diversity of the State of Texas.”

This is a good idea under the present circumstances. I’m not sure it would be a good permanent practice. Using party strength to allocate leadership positions, while well intentioned, moves the House one step closer to a formal division by party — something I hope never happens, but which I fear is inevitable.

* Selection of a temporary House parliamentarian to serve on the opening day of the session.

This is a one-shot reform to get rid of Terry Keel. Go for it. I just wish someone would tell me the procedure for 150 people who haven’t taken the oath of office at the time the temporary officers are appointed by the Secretary of State to remove the temporary parliamentarian.

* House rules [should] guarantee recognition of all members for questions of privilege, points of order, and appeals of rulings during the session.

As much as I oppose Craddick’s power grab, I don’t agree with guaranteeing recognition for all questions of privilege. A motion to adjourn is highly privileged. No speaker in my memory has treated it so. Members who seek to make that motion are usually told, “Not at this time.” I have been told that the tumultuous 1961 session featured frequent fights over motions to adjourn. I think the speaker has to retain the ability to move the legislative process forward.

* A three-term speaker term limit.

I generally oppose term limits as artificial constraints on talent, but I make an exception in this case — not because of Craddick, but because long speakerships are not good for the House. They bottle up talent. Members stay in their positions. And stay. And stay. And there is no way for talented junior members to move up. Look at Pete Gallego. He should have had the opportunity to be chairman of Appropriations. The House grows stale under long speakerships. I saw it happen under Laney.  It’s even worse under Craddick,  because there is no back door to his doghouse. You never get out. But term limits are no magic bullet. A lobbyist who struck up a friendship with the speaker in a state that had term limits told me that the restriction resulted in a perpetual speaker’s race, with candidates taking pledges one, two, even three sessions into the future, and the speaker always maneuvering with his potential successors to cut a favorable deal for himself.

*  Ban direct and indirect contributions from the speaker in elections against sitting members of the Legislature.

This is one of those cases in which bad facts make bad law. Craddick uses his control of money to control members. It’s a bad situation, and if he loses his speakership, it will be a strong contributing factor. But I think singling out one member and prohibiting him from making contributions is a bad idea. The way to cure this problem is to eliminate the source of the problem.

* End the practice of special interest groups and lobbyists meeting with House members in the speaker’s office during floor debate.

A proposed rules change in 2007 would have banned lobbyists from the back hallway. Opponents argued that the speaker had the right to meet with whomever he wanted. Even if the speaker is using these meetings to pressure members, my view is, “That’s politics.” I wouldn’t try to regulate it by rule.

* Ban lobbyists and political consultants from serving on legislative transition teams.

Whatever went wrong with Craddick’s speakership, it wasn’t because Messer, Miller, and Ceverha were on his transition team. People who have influence with a speaker because of long years of friendship are not going to cease having it if they can’t serve on a transition team. This is a cosmetic fix that won’t affect anything except appearances.

* Ban the practice of using the appropriations bill to reward patronage.

You might as well ban the practice of politics.

I appreciate what Keffer is trying to do. In my experience, you can’t legislative good behavior. Craddick brought to the office of speaker all of the accumulated grievances of thirty-four years of being on the losing side and a sense of entitlement that the members owed him their loyalty, not the other way around. He can’t change that now, and no rule can make him change.

Tagged: constitutional amendment, dan gattis, jim keffer, parliamentarian, pete gallego, speaker removal, terry keel

Things are about to get ugly in the speaker’s race. The Craddick forces, led by several longtime loyalists (I want to run another check on the names), are trying to stir up a coordinated campaign to put pressure on wavering colleagues to vote for Craddick. According to credible reports I have received from Republican operatives, they are asking members to call various GOP and conservative groups with which members may be connected. The purpose is to get activists in these organizations to call House members and urge them (a) to support Craddick and (b) to oppose a secret ballot for the selection of the speaker.

One of the first shots in this battle was fired by Republican County Chairmen’s Association president Linda Rogers. She sent a letter to all GOP county chairs warning that “Texas Liberals are attempting to take over our State House of Representative by nefarious means.” As the Quorum Report pointed out, among the people “attempting to take over” the House are conservative Republicans Burt Solomons and Jim Keffer, and the “nefarious means” are a vote of the members of the House of Representatives, as specified in the Texas Constitution.

So members can expect to spend their Christmas holidays being badgered by county chairs and members of Republican womens’ clubs, right-to-life organizations, and any other affiliated groups. No doubt the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) members will get their shots in too.

As the Republican apparatchiks gear up to support Craddick, the speaker’s race is likely to become an issue in state GOP politics. Tina Benkiser, the current chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, is a virtual certainty to become the vice-chairman of the Republican National Committee. Party rules require that if the RNC chairman is male, the vice-chairman must be female (and vice-versa). Since Benkiser appears to be the sole female candidate for vice-chair, and all of the candidates for chairman are male, she can hardly lose. Her successor at the RPT will be chosen by the 62 members of the SREC (a man and a woman from each of the 31 state Senate districts).

Among the leading candidates are Denise McNamara, one of the two RNC members from Texas, and Gina Parker, who lost her race for RPT chairman to Benkiser. Former RPT vice-chair David Barton and attorney Kelly Shackleford wield a lot of clout with the SREC. One can picture the various candidates sparing no threat to prove themselves most adept at delivering votes for Craddick.

The problem for Craddick is that things have gotten to the point where every time he acts like, well, Craddick, he reminds GOP members why they wish he would just go away. Many members are still fuming about Craddick’s iron-fisted control of members’ races. Candidates had to come to Austin and appear before Christi Craddick, the speaker’s daughter; operative John Colyandro; and consultant Dave Carney. They were told what they had to do in their campaigns in order to get money that the speaker controlled. They had to bring their campaign plans and subject them to Christi Craddick’s scrutiny. She could overrule the members and insist on their using speaker-approved campaign materials that had already been prepared by consultants. Many members were furious; they felt that they knew their districts better than Carney, who is from New Hampshire, or Ms. Craddick. These hard feelings have not subsided.

Another source of ill will for Craddick is the redistricting map that the Legislative Redistricting Board adopted in 2001. A lot of Republicans have been defeated because of that map, which was supposed to make the House safe for Republicans for a decade. It is apparent, in retrospect, that the map adopted by the Legislative Redistricting Board was drawn to elect not just a Republican speaker, but a Republican speaker named Craddick. It was drawn to maximize Republican districts, not to safeguard incumbents.

Craddick couldn’t settle for 85 Republicans, because, back in 2001, there were 15 to 20 ABC Republicans who would never vote for him for speaker. To get more GOP districts, safe seats had to be sacrificed for more marginal seats. These are the seats Republicans have been losing: a net of twelve seats lost to the Democrats since Craddick became speaker in 2003.

I think Republicans in the House are finally beginning to realize the damage that Craddick has done to the GOP majority. Does it mean that the GOP rank and file will turn against him? The discontent with Craddick is far greater than I thought it was. But at the moment, it appears that fear still outweighs outrage.

Tagged: burt solomons, christi craddick, dave carney, david barton, denise mcnamara, gina parker, jim keffer, john colyandro, kelly shackleford, linda rogers, republican party of texas, speaker's race, state republican executive committee, Texas house, tina benkiser, tom craddick

Honorably Mentioned: Burt Solomons, Jim Keffer, Craig Eiland, Brian McCall, Rafael Anchia, Charlie Geren, Warren Chisum, Phil King, and Rob Junell (naturally). If you do not see your name on the list, you have given us no reason to talk about you.

(Go watch it on our homepage so I don’t have to take your abuse by posting it here. And, no, I’m not wearing a white long-sleeved shirt. Those are my real alabaster arms.)

Tagged: Brian McCall, burt solomons, Charlie Geren, craig eiland, jim keffer, phil king, rafael anchia, rob junell, speaker's race, sylvester turner

11/14 Update: Peer Pressure works again! Now we have eight of the nine. (Delwin Jones, please report to me.) So who’s your favorite? Naturally, in the interest of bipartisanship and journalistic ethics, I will not be revealing my choice.

11/14 Update #2: Delwin Jones’s statement was lost in Evan Smith’s office clutter. The list now reflects this.

We asked each of the candidates (as nicely as possible) for Speaker to submit statements on why they think they should hold the highly coveted gavel next session. Six have gotten back to us; three are MIA (you know who you are).

Click to read them at Speaker Up.

Tagged: alan ritter, candidates, jim keffer, scott hochberg, sylvester turner, texas speaker's race, tom craddick, tommy merritt

Eileen talks with Burka about the cantankerous Speaker’s race, a House divided, Craddick D’s, ABC’s, and 2010 with KBH.

Honorable video mentions include: Reps. Tommy Merritt; Jim Keffer; Pete Gallego; Craig Eiland; Dan Gattis; Alan Ritter; and Sylvester Turner.

Tagged: criag eiland, dan gattis, jim keffer, paul burka, pete gallego, texas speaker's race, tom craddick, tommy merritt