Tea Party, Others Put Texas Senate in Sights
The restricted club that is the Texas Senate will be invaded by noisy conservative voters and activists next year if senators have to choose a new leader from their own ranks.
If Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst wins a United States Senate seat or moves into the governor's office after the 2012 elections, state senators will elect one of their own to take his place. If Gov. Rick Perry wins the presidency, his job would go to either Dewhurst or to the state senator who has taken Dewhurst's place.
Either way, it sets up another round of the Republican ...
Comments (4)
gypsy314 ne
Know wonder nothing gets done. The senate should not have to have a 2/3 vote to pass anything. Simple majority should do.
WUSRPH
Two points:
It only takes 16 votes to change the "two-thirds rule"...That is all that would be required to change it when the Senate is considering its Rules Resolution at the beginning of the session...As it was changed, to a limited extent, during the last two Legislatures.
Those Republicans who oppose this rule in the Texas Senate seem to have little problem with it in the US SENATE at least when they are in the minority. (The U.S. Senate's equivalent is the 60 vote rule to allow debate.) But then hypocrisy has always been the Official Religion of Texas Politics.
Bill Eastland
WUSRPH, some of us have advocated the 'Blocker' rule be changed from 2/3 to 60%, which still gives a minority a measure of negative power. This was even included in the last resolution passed by the R state committee.
But, you are right that the article is incorrect. Specifically, the line, "With the rules as they are, they can't put together the votes to kill the rule" is false because the initial vote to ADOPT the rule only requires a majority vote. They only continue the ancient rule because of hoary tradition. Also note that the rule only applies to the Regular Session, not to any special session. It may be that any succession elections will be done in special sessions before the new Legislature takes office.
It is unfair to accuse Republicans of hypocrisy without including Democrats as well because there have been plenty of them on both sides of this issue.
BTW, the US Senate rule requires 60 votes to END debate and allow a vote. It is the TX Senate rule that requires the supermajority to take up a bill and thereby ALLOW debate.
There is a better solution to all of this. If our leaders were responsible, they would ask Perry to call a special session to take up the matter of a constitutional amendment to fix the succession problem. This should have been done in the '70s when we lengthened the terms of office from two years to four. With two-year terms, the next election would fix any vacancy, not so now.
How about the legislature makes an interim appointment and a special election is called to fill out the unexpired term? This is modern and common, we do it for US Senators and, except for the appointment, for Congressmen and members of the legislature. This could also fix the current problem that the Senator chosen to be Lt. Gov. also still serves in the Senate. The rule that it is a Senator who is chosen should be dropped and anybody be elected. If it is an officeholder who is chosen, his or her seat would be vacated and a special election held. The amendment could be placed on the Nov 2012 ballot and adopted in time for any vacancy.
WUSRPH
Mr. Eastland:
Unlike you I strongly favor the 2/3rds "Tradition"...I worked in the Senate for several years, including closely with the late Bob Johnson, and had the honor of drafting most of the rule changes in the 90s...How do you like my preamble and statement of purpose? I think the tradition serves the best interests of the public....like Madison I believe that it is vital the structure of government make major changes take an overwhleming support of the public and be able to show that they represent more thn the "momentary passions of the mob". Man not being pefectable, we need protections from ourselves. This rule is part and parcel of that effort. As to the succession problem...I agree it needs to be addressed.....I do not want an "appointed" governor or lt. governor. I have no problem with the Lt. Gov. moving up...but I think if the pro tem were to move up it should only be temporary with his first durty to call a special election within 90 days to fill the vacancy....just like for the U.S. Senate. I don't know about a special session now since I sincerely hope that neither the governor's or lt. governor's offices become vacant as a result of next year's elections....