Not Tom. His daughter Christi. Rick Perry has a vacancy to fill, following the resignation of Michael Williams in April. (Williams, through his consultant, had previously insisted to me that he was unequivocally running for the U.S. Senate; he now has his sights set on one of the 17 or so new congressional districts in Travis County.) I’m told that a relative of Jose Aliseda is also a possibility. I have also heard that if Christi doesn’t get the appointment, she may run against whoever does get it.

Tagged: christi craddick, michael williams, railroad commission, tom craddick

You have to feel sorry for the Legislative Budget Board. The LBB came out with a required report titled “Dynamic Economic Impact Statement” on the effect of the House budget, and you have never heard such squealing in the pink building. Among those seeking to apply the Maybelline were David Dewhurst and the Texas Public Policy Foundation. But it will take more than a whole tube of “red revolution” or “warm and cozy” to pretty up this swine.

You see, the LBB made a big mistake: It told the truth. It didn’t say, as the governor likes to boast, “We have gotten through hard times before,” or, “We are confident that the state will be able to meet its obligations.” Instead, it delivered the bad news.

How bad is bad? All of the numbers in parenthesis are negative.

Total employment [Jobs lost]
2012 (271,746.1)
2013 (335,244.1) (more…)

Tagged: david dewhurst, Joe Straus, Legislative Budget Board, rick perry, texas public policy foundation, tom craddick

[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

The Joe Straus who put together these committee assignments was a different Joe Straus from the one who made the appointments in 2009. Straus 2.0 is a much more skilled politician. For those who had labeled him a RINO, he spiked that attack by appointing 27 Republican chairs to only 11 Democrats, a ratio well in excess of the Republican majority of 101 to 49. His enemies had focused on Straus’s appointment of Democrat Rene Oliveira as chairman of Ways & Means as evidence that he was too cozy with Democrats. Straus removed Oliveira as chairman but gave him another chairmanship (Land and Resource Management).

The most important chairmanship held by a Democrat is Business & Industry (Joe Deshotel, who chaired the committee in 09, remains as chairman). I thought Pickett might hold onto Transportation, but Larry Phillips got it instead. I did hear some grumbling that transportation is an urban issue and should be chaired by an urban member. Pickett settled for Defense & Veterans’ Affairs, which will certainly help him back home in El Paso. He retains his seat on Transportation due to seniority.

The smartest move Straus made was to honor Tom Craddick, the longest serving member, as Dean of the House. He also named former Craddick lieutenant Beverly Woolley speaker pro tem. These were clear signals that Straus had put the hostilities of 2007 and 2009 (which culminated in his winning the speakership) behind him and that he was ready to move on.

Another shrewd move was installing Todd Hunter as chairman of Calendars. Some key Straus supporters were said to be jockeying for the position, but Hunter has the right demeanor–calm, relaxed, nonthreatening, and basically nonpartisan–to put members at ease. 

One of the big questions about Straus’s appointments was whether he would forgive and forget the traumas of the speaker’s race. His supporters didn’t want him to, and he didn’t. Poor Bryan Hughes, who said that he had been threatened by Larry Phillips over redistricting and pulled his pledge to Straus, is on Agriculture & Livestock and Human Services. Straus’s rival for the speakership, Ken Paxton, is on County Affairs and Urban Affairs. Phil King is on Elections and Urban Affairs. Leo Berman is on Elections. You might think that is exactly where Berman would want to be, but the real Elections committee is the House Select Committee on Voter Identification and Voter Fraud, chaired by Dennis Bonnen. Sorry, Leo. And sorry to Larry Taylor, too, who is chairman of Elections and won’t get to do anything meaningful. Many Straus loyalists think that Taylor could, and should, have stopped the Republican caucus straw poll for speaker.

Another interesting committee is Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. The chairman is former Dallas County commisioner Jim Jackson, an odd choice, it seems to me. The committee has handled tort-reform issues in the past, but the 8-3 Republican majority suggests that issues championed by Texans for Lawsuit Reform are ticketed for quick passage or oblivion. Most likely, it’s the former.

A few weeks ago, while chairmanships were very much the subject of speculation, I raised the possibility that Mike “Tuffy” Hamilton might be the choice for chairman of Licensing & Administrative Procedures. My argument at the time was that Hamilton represented a Republican area that might support gaming–Orange and Jefferson counties. If you put a resort casino on Pleasure Island [corrected from "Treasure Island" in an earlier version] in Port Arthur, that would end the exodus to Lake Charles every weekend and keep gambling dollars in Texas. Well, Hamilton got the chairmanship, and the anti-Louisiana strategy still makes sense to me.

The most interesting new chairman is Harvey Hildebran at Ways & Means. He has always wanted to be a player, but he has been relegated to second-string positions. This is his big chance. If the Republicans are ever going to raise revenue, this will be the year. He is also on State Affairs. If Hildrebran is ever going to have a breakout year, this is the time.

What about members who are underutilized? Start with Rafael Anchia. He’s on Land & Resource Management and Pensions, Investments, and Financial Services. The latter is his area of expertise, but still, this is one of the top talents in the House, and he’s relegated to the back benches. Charlie Howard paid the price for supporting Paxton. He’s on Energy Resources, Agriculture & Livestock, and Rules & Resolutions.

Don’t count on seeing a lot of Borris Miles. The inner-city Houston rep is on Agriculture & Livestock. The Democratic party switchers, Ritter and Pena, apparently caught the late train. Ritter remains chairman of Natural Resources. Pena has the chairmanship of Technology.

I don’t see much for Straus’s critics to harp on. He has loaded up on Republican chairs, strengthened the Appropriations committee, and banished his enemies to the dark corners of the Capitol. This guy knows what he is doing.

Tagged: Aaron Pena, Beverly Woolley, Bryan Hughes, Charlie Howard, Dennis Bonnen, Harvey Hildebran, Jim Jackson, Joe Deshotel, joe pickett, Joe Straus, Ken Paxton, larry phillips, Mike Hamilton, rafael anchia, Rene Oliveira, todd hunter, tom craddick

An unsigned editorial in today’s Midland Reporter-Telegram expresses concern that the $12 billion in stimulus funds that were used to balance the budget “might some day come back to haunt us.” The paper was alerted to the danger by “a recent report to Midlanders from Tom Craddick, our state representative, [that] appears to bring some of those fears into focus.”

The editorial goes on to say, “Gov. Rick Perry wanted to turn down some of the stimulus funds because he saw that the stimulus would ultimately cost Texas taxpayers a lot of money.” Not exactly. The governor blocked the use of $555 million in stimulus funds that would have expanded unemployment benefits while easing the pain of a tax increase on business. He may have “wanted to” turn down the other $12 billion that Texas received, but he didn’t do it. He signed a budget that, without the stimulus funds, could not have been balanced without deep cuts, raiding the Rainy Day Fund, or new sources of revenue. Without the stimulus funds, Perry and the Legislature would have faced some very hard choices with an election looming in the near future. I think Perry did the right thing. But since then he has done nothing but bite the hand that fed him. He wants to have it both ways — take Washington’s money, then accuse Washington of profligacy, and if Hutchison happens to score some money for Texas, it’s pork.

The editorial continues: “Craddick told Midlanders there currently is $9.5 billion in the state’s ‘rainy day fund,’ making Texas the only large state to carry a surplus. The sad part is that Craddick thinks the stimulus ‘gift’ from Washington will end up creating a significant cut in that surplus or even a deficit. Many Texans simply can’t see why a $12 billion gift from Washington can be a bad thing. What is unseen is how that money is spent. Craddick says much of the money went to projects and services that will create future expenses.”

“We would have been much smarter to limiting the use of stimulus funds that qualified strictly as one-time uses as Craddick favored,” the editorial says. He did? I don’t recall Craddick going to the microphone to urge refusing the stimulus. Of course, it’s not his style; he prefers to huddle with his acolytes. Still, one such word from Craddick and lawmakers would have been running for cover, especially the Republicans. I do remember that during the rules debate, early in the session, Craddick helped round up Republican votes for a Dunnam amendment to accept stimulus funding — and good for him for doing so. But it’s a little late for regrets.

Tagged: kay bailey hutchison, rick perry, tom craddick

On the night that the House debated the Appropriations bill on the floor in 2007, Democrats were able to add amendments for a teacher pay raise and against school vouchers. Craddick lieutenants went onto the floor to try to turn the votes but were unable to do so. The next day, a veteran Democrat said to me, “The horses are out of the barn.” In short, Craddick had lost control of the Republican caucus.

That’s where we are today on Voter I.D. The speaker cannot control the Republican caucus. Craddick lost control because he held the reins too tightly. Straus lost control because he didn’t have any reins. But the effect is the same: The Republican caucus is out of control. This doesn’t mean that Straus is ineffectual. It means that the horses are out of the barn on this issue.

Matt Angle of the Lone Star Project recently circulated his observations about Straus:
“Rather than demonstrate bipartisan leadership, Speaker Straus has allowed the most partisan and divisive Republican members of the House to set the agenda. While Straus was looking for cover, Tom Craddick stepped into the breach. The famously partisan, mean-spirited former Speaker argued successfully to hold fast to the partisan Republican game plan to hold key legislation hostage to consideration of the Voter Photo ID bill.”

Craddick still has a band of followers, no doubt about that, and they’re going to take hardline positions, no doubt about that either. But I don’t agree that Straus has been weakened by the Voter I.D. debate. This is his first real test, and he stood firm against the Democrats. If anything, this has improved his standing with the Republican caucus.

So Voter I.D. will die, and TDI Sunset, and unemployment insurance. These bills were more about politics — getting the other guys to cast a bad votes — than they were about the real problems of the state. The remaining question is whether Perry will call a special session, with the likely reason being windstorm insurance. I’m not sure that he will (notwithstanding my earlier rants to the contrary). He has called a bunch of special sessions, and none of them have served him well. Governors seldom get what they want out of special sessions. Perry is sailing along quite well. Why rock the boat?

Tagged: speaker joe straus, tom craddick, voter ID

The conventional wisdom is that Republicans will pick up House seats in 2010, for two reasons. One is that the president’s party seldom does well in the first off-year election (George W. Bush in 2002 being a notable exception). Another reason is that Democrats have to defend their recent gains in marginal seats in Republican districts. But I’m not so sure that the conventional wisdom is right. The Republican electoral apparatus is in shambles. Tom Craddick has directed every Republican legislative campaign since “76 in 96.” I can’t envision him playing that role in 2010, even though his personal campaign account has $2.12 million cash on hand and his Stars over Texas PAC has another $94,000+. What’s the point? The slaves have been freed; they don’t want him back as speaker. Many GOP members chafed at the tight control and micromanagement exercised by Craddick over their campaigns last fall; it was a factor in his downfall as speaker. More to the point, the Republicans lost seats in every election since Craddick became speaker.

So the question is: Who will run the races? The Republican party is incapable and incompetent. ART, the Associated Republicans of Texas, was very effective in its heyday, but when a split developed in the organization over whether ART should engage in Republican primary races, ART’s godfather, Norm Newton, left the organization. ART is no longer a factor.

The efforts of the Patriot Group to form an umbrella organization for Republican elected officials suggests that the firm might be seeking to take control of the elections. Other consultants and activists might have their own ideas. TAB’s Bill Hammond and lobbyist Mike Toomey oversaw the 2002 elections, but they did so under Craddick’s aegis. Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a Toomey client, aligned with Craddick in 2008, but they supported conservative Democrats as well as Republicans, and their efforts were significant. Rick Perry loaned his campaign team to the Craddick effort last fall, without notable success. If Perry were to win his Republican primary race against Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2010, he and his team could organize a campaign, but if he loses, he’ll have one foot out the door. In short, the infrastructure for a Republican campaign does not currently exist.

(more…)

Tagged: 2010, art, associated republicans of texas, Charlie Geren, chuck hopson, jerry madden, Joe Straus, mark homer, patriot group, texas republicans, tom craddick

This may have been the point that Dutton was trying to make: that the logic of the new rules makes the speaker virtually invulnerable to removal.

Craddick’s critics argued that the congressional precedents and other authorities (such as Mason’s) empowered the members to remove the speaker at any time by majority vote. The rules as interpreted in Straus’s response to Dutton say that the motion to vacate can only be used once in a session. A motion to reconsider the vote is in order. If the motion to reconsider fails, it may not be made again.

Future speakers can control the process completely by arranging, following the vote by which they are elected, to have an ally move to reconsider and table the vote by which the speaker was elected. If it passes (and of course it will), further motions to reconsider are off the table for the rest of the session, and the speaker can only be removed by impeachment or expulsion. Just like Terry Keel said.

Tagged: harold dutton, Joe Straus, motion to vacate, terry keel, tom craddick

The highlights:

1. A process is established for removal of the speaker following the refusal to recognize a member for a question of privilege. (The Tom Craddick Rule)

This had to be done. The Craddick/Keel/Wilson ruling that the speaker was an officer of the state and could not be removed except through impeachment could not be allowed to stand.

2. One-half of the Appropriations committee shall be determined on the basis of seniority (excluding the chair and vice-chair).

Wow! I didn’t expect this. It means that a lot of experienced Democrats could be back on Appropriations: Turner, Gallego, Coleman, probably Dukes. Chisum makes it. Gattis and Kolkhorst will need speaker appointments to return. In fact, most of the Rs on the committee will be wiped out unless they get speaker appointments. Well, that wasn’t a very strong bunch anyway.

3. Points of order based on the bill analysis may be overruled if the analysis is not materially or substantially misleading.

Yes, I think everybody recognized that the nitpicking of the bill analysis resulted in too many bills getting killed for hypertechnical reasons.

4. If a vacancy occurs in the office of the parliamentarian, the appointment of a new parliamentarian must be approved by the house in the next regular or special session. The parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of the speaker and has a duty of loyalty and confidentiality to the speaker and each member of the house. (The Terry Keel Rule)

This change probably won’t be needed for a long time, but everyone understands why this barn door had to be closed, even though the horse didn’t get away.

5. The Calendars committee may set a third reading calendar to be considered by the house at a time certain designated by the committee. The third reading calendar has precedence at the time certain, except that the chair may permit the house to complete action on any measure under consideration.

My impression is that this rule represents a backlash against the procedure at the end of last session when members were suspending rules right and left to get bills passed instead of clearing bills on third reading. That was an ugly scene, and the rule is necessary to prevent a repeat.

6. Motions to reconsider the vote by which a bill was defeated shall not be in order unless a member has previously provided at least two hours’ notice of intent by addressing the house while the house is in session. (The Warren Chisum Rule)

Last session Chisum had a vendor bill involving drivers’ records that was defeated on the floor. The next morning there was a motion to reconsider. I don’t recall whether Chisum made the motion or not, but I do recall that hardly anybody was on the floor when the motion was made. The bill was reconsidered and Chisum lost again. That sneaky play was one of the reasons he ended up on the Ten Worst list.

7. Calendars committee rules governing debate for a bill must be laid before the house not earlier than six hours after copies of the rule have been distributed to members. To be effective, such rules must be approved by 2/3 of the members present and voting, EXCEPT that for an appropriations bill, a redistricting bill, or a tax bill, the rule may be approved by a majority vote.

This rules change could have a huge effect. In particular, the Calendars committee’s standard rule for appropriations bills—you can’t propose new spending unless you cut an equal amount from somewhere else—makes it virtually impossible to move money around in the bill. If the rule gets voted down, the levee that has held amendments back for years will collapse. You will see Democrats offer an amendment that, say, takes money away from property tax cuts and puts it into something like dropout prevention, and Republicans will may take money from schools and use it to fund vouchers. I don’t like the calendars committee rule, because it prevents full debate on the state’s priorities, but the only thing worse than preventing full debate on the state’s priorities may be allowing it.

8. Members may not indicate a preference for the position of chairman for budget and oversight when indicating their preferred substantive committee assignments.

You know what this means: no CBOs. Good for Straus. But it also means fewer plums for the speaker to hand out.

9. During a regular session, a printed copy of the calendar on which the General Appropriations bill is set for debate must be distributed to members at least 144 hours before the calendar may be considered by the house.

It doesn’t matter. They won’t read the bill anyway.

10. Bill analyses must include a separate statement that lists each statute or constitutional provision that is being amended or repealed.

I don’t know how far-reaching this is. I do know that it is impossible to know what is going on when the bill simply says it repeals section so and so. That doesn’t tell you anything.

I have one major complaint with the rules. The end of the session was so chaotic last year, particularly the last three days, that I wished the House were operating under the Laney rules. This set deadlines for the progress of bills through the process in the last two to three weeks. The idea was to reserve the last week or so for negotiating the major bills in conference committees, and generally to prevent opportunities for skullduggery. I am sorry that the proposed changes do not incorporate the Laney rules, or something similar.

On the good side, the damage inflicted by Craddick on the balance of power between the speaker and the members has been repaired. It’s way too early to say that this is a happy ending, but at least it’s a new beginning.

One further point about the rules: I think Straus makes good here on his vow to run the House for the benefit of the members. On my list, #1, #2, #4, #6, #7, #9, and #10 all are designed to empower, or just to make life easier for, members. Solomons has done a very good job of transforming Straus’s intentions into reality.

* * * *

This is the language for the procedure to appeal the refusal of a speaker to recognize a member for a question of privilege:

The refusal of the speaker to recognize a member for a question of privilege that is in order under this chapter is subject to an appeal to the house if the member seeking recognition submits to the speaker a written motion requesting recognition that is singed by at least 76 members of the house. An appeal …shall be set as a special order of the house to be considered 24 hours after the time a motion is submitted. If the appeal overturns the speaker’s refusal to recognize the member seeking recognition, the member shall be recognized on the question of privilege at the first time the question is in order….

Tagged: appropriations committee, dan gattis, dawnna dukes, garnet coleman, Joe Straus, Lois Kolkhorst, pete gallego, seniority, sylvester turner, terry keel, texas house rules, tom craddick, vacating speaker, warren chisum

The rules debate will probably take place on Wednesday, one day after the governor’s State of the State address. Last session it took 8 hours and 48 minutes for the House to adopt its rules. Democrats raised legitimate concerns about confidentiality and attorney-client privilege, due to former Republican operative Milton Rister’s stewardship at the Legislative Council. Rister is still there. Another contentious issue last session was whether to ban lobbyists from the back hallway, or from the speaker’s office, when the House was in session. It is going to be interesting to see whether those concerns will arise under a speaker not named Craddick.

The most essential change is to undo the Keel/Craddick ruling of last session concerning recognition of privileged motions. The body has to have the recourse of removing the speaker by majority vote. Readers will recall that Keel crafted an argument that Craddick was an officer of the state and could only be removed by impeachment. (The Texas Constitution provides as well that the House can expel a member by a 2/3 vote.) Personalities aside, I do not see how a member of the legislative branch of government can be an officer of the state, a description of an executive nature. Craddick argued that his duties made him an officer of the state, but if you strictly construe the question of what is an officer, you should look not at the duties but at the nature of the office, which is that a legislator represents 1/150th of the state and therefore cannot claim to have a statewide portfolio. Another absurdity of Keel’s claim that impeachment was the only method of removing the speaker was that in the case of impeachment, the House could vote to impeach but trial would take place in the Senate, so a majority of the Senate could override the will of a majority of the House.

As I understand it, the rules will establish a process for the removal of the speaker. It will require that a certain number of members file a document calling for removal. The threshold should be 76 members. It should not be a supermajority because the speaker is not elected by a supermajority. The petition, or whatever the document is called, provides notice to the speaker, and after a specified time, the vote will take place. This gives the speaker time to round up his votes. (I have not seen the proposed rules; this is a summary of a couple of conversations I have had with members.)

Three important issues will involve the Appropriations committee. One is whether seniority will be respected on the committee. The rules adopted in 2007 specified that seniority would not apply. Surely Straus does not want to change this, as the previous committee was topheavy with Craddick loyalists. Another issue is whether Straus wants Appropriations to be made up entirely (except for chair and vice-chair) of CBO’s–the designated Chairmen for Budget and Oversight of the substantive committees. I understand why speakers like this system. If they can appoint 35 to 40 chairs, vice-chairs, and CBOs, they will have made between 105 and 120 members happy. Throw in 11 slots on Calendars and seniority appointments for veteran members, and you have a good shot at making every member happy.

And the downside? Well, you wind up with a weak Appropriations committee, like the one Craddick had last session, full of inexperienced or ineffective members who aren’t really qualified to be chairs. Straus would be well advised, in a session in which the budget is likely to be the most contentious issue, to dispense with the CBOs and stock the committee with talented members. But if he wants to be reelected, and what speaker doesn’t, employing CBOs is the way to go.

The rules must also address the number and jurisdiction of committees. The obvious choices are whether to merge committees whose jurisdictions were split by Craddick: Ways & Means and Local Government Ways and Means; and State Affairs, Regulated Industries, and Civil Practices. As Straus appears to prefer fewer and larger committees, mergers seems likely.

Yesterday, Solomons took the microphone after the session to discuss the process for distributing the proposed rules, which he said would occur on Monday morning, after he spent the weekend cutting and pasting. Phil King went to the back microphone to point out that the Conservative Caucus had set a meeting for Monday night to discuss the rules and urged that they be distributed as soon as possible on Monday. The exchange was totally civil, but the message King seemed to be delivering is that conservatives intend to come to the rules debate ready to do battle. It would not surprise anyone if they had a proposal making it easy to knock off the speaker. The two major parties in the House are still the Craddicks and the anti-Craddicks. We will know a lot more about how the House will function in the Straus era after Tuesday.

Tagged: burt solomons, conservative caucus, house rules, Joe Straus, lege council, milton rister, phil king, terry keel, tom craddick