The Texas Observer

Just before Christmas I spoke with Rep. Pat Haggerty (R-El Paso), the most recent candidate to announce for speaker of the Texas House. Haggerty represents HD 78 and says the number-one reason members should put him in the big chair is that he will honor the “process” of the lower body.

“I have a strong belief in process,” Haggerty said as the reason why members might support him. He said the kinds of problems that have cropped up lately would never have surfaced “when the process is allowed to function the way it is supposed to function.”

What exactly Haggerty means by process is not completely clear, but he did mention the calendar — the sometimes arcane process by which a bill gets heard, and one that Speaker Craddick has manipulated to reward friends and punish enemies. The House Rules (3.86 MB) are full of such ‘processes,’ but observers will note that in the 80th Session (like previous sessions), the rules were suspended almost as often as they were in force.

“This is a process that is designed by geniuses to be run by idiots,” Haggerty said. He said that Speaker Tom Craddick demonstrated last session that “he can just put a bill on the calendar, or not…” That, Haggerty said, represents “a total corruption of the system.”

Behind Haggerty’s talk of process lies the implicit promise that as speaker he would not let partisan impulses get the better of a member’s right to vote his or her district — the mantra of former Speaker Pete Laney.

“Every member should have a right to represent their district,” Haggerty said.

Asked why he decided to run — and why he is announcing in December 2007 — Haggerty pointed to Democrat Dan Barrett’s victory in a runoff in an erstwhile-solid-GOP district in southwest Fort Worth on Dec. 18. The Republicans in that race found themselves in disarray, thanks, chiefly, to disputes over whether or not Craddick should continue as speaker (as well as a couple of dirty tricks). Barrett also ran as an anti-Craddick Democrat and by all accounts benefited from that message.

“After the fiasco in House District 97 the other night, I thought the only way to offer an alternative is to run for speaker,” Haggerty told me. “It was pretty much just a referendum on Tom Craddick… It was a real slap in his face…”

I pointed out that the folks over at the Burnt Orange Report were floating a notion that Haggerty should change parties and join Texas Democrats, a la Kirk England, but Haggerty dismissed the idea, after asking what exactly BOR was.

“Tell ‘em not to hold their breath,” Haggerty said.

As the El Paso Times mentioned when it reported Haggerty’s filing, he is the only Republican representative of a district along the Texas-Mexico border. And for those Democrats who hoped Haggerty’s proximity to the Rio Grande would soften his stance on illegal immigration, don’t get your hopes up.

“We’ve got to close our borders,” Haggerty said, admitting that immigration will probably be the number-one issue in his re-election effort in the GOP primary in his northwestern El Paso district. He faces El Paso businessman Dee Margo. The winner of the HD 78 GOP primary will likely face Democrat Louis Irwin, a University of Texas at El Paso biology professor — although Irwin had not yet filed with the Texas Democratic Party as of Dec. 27. Chances are Irwin is really teeing up in case the opportunity arises to face Margo. It’s thought the district trends Democrat but voters would give Haggerty a pass because he has represented them for so long.

“We’ve got to do everything we can to stop the flow [of immigrants],” Haggerty said. “To stop any further bleeding… It is the law. It’s wrong. I think there is a problem of national security. If this comes down the way it should, it’s going to result in some sort of guest-worker program.”

Haggerty says the proposed “fence” along the border is a federal initiative and he says it’s a federal issue, but he says he has no illusions. He does expect the immigration issue to play heavily in his district as well as nationally in 2008.

According to the Texas Ethics Commission, Haggerty now joins five others who have officially announced for Texas Speaker for the 81st Legislature: Delwin Jones (R-Lubbock), Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston), Sylvester Turner (D-Houston), Jim Keffer (R-Eastland), and Tom Craddick (R-Midland). Both Reps. Brian McCall (R-Plano) and Jim Pitts (R-Waxahachie) had filed for speaker in the last session, but have not updated their forms at the commission indicating the intent to run in January 2009.

Of course, the speaker’s race now, more than ever, vitally depends on which party controls the Texas House when the chips fall in November.

The recent opinion issued by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has once again got people thinking about just how to make sure a Texas House Speaker’s fate is not decided by the Texas Senate.

Abbott basically said he believed a court would likely conclude that the Speaker is a state officer and therefore subject to impeachment — a process which would begin in the Texas House and end in the Texas Senate. Plenty of observers and interested parties agree that having the upper body determine the leadership of the lower body is in no way what the Texas Constitution intends.

In footnote 22 on page 23 of Abbott’s opinion, it is noted that “The Speaker contends that ‘nothing in the Constitution requires an impeached Speaker to be tried by the Senate.’… The Speaker’s assertion does not comport with article XV or chapter 665 of the Government Code…”

I’ll admit I’m pretty dazed and confused by much of the legal mumbo-jumbo, but it sure seems to say here that an impeached Speaker would be tried by the Texas Senate (and who in hell decides exactly what these maniacs decide to capitalize anyway?)

Of all the smart people that have weighed in on what Abbott’s ruling means, I found a statement from Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) to be the most instructive so far.

It turns out that the one area on which Abbott (wisely) refused to speculate involves the Rules of the Texas House — their interpretation as they stand, and how they should have or could affect a speaker’s removal.

“If you want different rules, then you need a different speaker… If members want the ability to remove their presiding officer for cause… pass rules that say that is the case,” Coleman said. “That’s what I would recommend to members.”

There’s a weirdness to this post-opinion debate. The players are all still arguing about the same issues. Nothing is resolved, while Craddick declares victory.

The real fight over whether Craddick has the right to ‘absolute authority’ over recognition will play out at the beginning of the 81st Legislature — in January 2009 — when the House chooses a speaker and when members adopt the House Rules.

Meanwhile, QR reports Jim Dunnam (D-Waco) is questioning why the AG’s office said the opinion would be issued in the early evening Friday and ended up being issued at roughly 10:15 p.m. I suggested it was just a shameless attempt to deflect press attention, but Dunnam seems to think there may have been some last-minute edits — and he says he’s asking for all documents and correspondence between Craddick and Abbott’s offices. Craddick’s spokeswoman said the speaker would make the material available to Dunnam.

Texas’ Attorney General Greg Abbott showed his true colors Friday delivering a ruling on whether or not Speaker Tom Craddick acted within his authority during the waning days of the 2007 regular session — including weighing in on whether the Speaker could be impeached or was subject to the rules of the Texas House.

Oh yeah… This one is a real profile in courage. Abbott’s office promised to have the decision on Friday — and they dumped it into empty newsrooms all over Texas at exactly 10:15 p.m. Friday night — when television producers were fully halfway into their shows, and when many daytime reporters were at home — in some cases thanking goodness they didn’t have to read the ruling.

And what’s it say, you ask?

Well, from the summary, it appears Abbott has ruled that “a court would likely conclude” that 1) “the Speaker is an officer of the state”; 2) the Speaker is “subject to impeachment”; 3) that fact “does not mean that impeachment is the only means of removing a Speaker”; and 4) Abbott is “declining” to interpret the House Rules.

The upshot? At first glance, it’s a ruling that would have been better off unissued. Score one for Craddick. As we say in Spanish, the “auto-golpe,” the self-coup appears to have legal justification, at least for now. Might this have something to do with the fact that the same donors give to Craddick and Abbott?

Here’s a link to the opinion, it’s the last one of 2007.

Here’s a comment from the speaker’s office, courtesy of the Quorum Report:

“The speaker welcomes the attorney general’s opinion and his acknowledgement that the rules of the House, as well as the interpretation of those rules, are matters to be determined solely by the members of the House. The attorney general’s opinion affirms the speaker’s position on all issues, including that the speaker is an officer of the state, who serves a two-year term of office. “Now that the attorney general has rendered his opinion, the speaker looks forward to continuing to work with legislators on the important business of the state.”

And from two of the speaker’s antagonists in the House, Jim Keffer (R-Eastland) and Byron Cook (R-Corsicana):

“In football terms, the Attorney General’s advisory opinion has punted this issue to the courts and has fumbled in its attempted summary. Craddick is elected from his Midland district which is only 1/150th of the people of Texas. Based on this, we strongly disagree with the unprecedented contention that the office of Speaker is a statewide officer.

“Furthermore, it is unprecedented to contend that the House Speaker is subject to removal by a vote of the Texas Senate. Sadly, the Attorney General’s advisory opinion only reaffirms the adage: ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Tom Craddick’s declaration of ‘absolute authority’ is an abuse of power and undermines the basic premise of democracy in Texas government.

“We firmly believe Craddick’s application of ‘absolute authority’ has violated constitutional rights of members of the legislature and the constituents they serve. We firmly believe our state constitution did not create the Texas House Speaker post as a dictatorial position.

“It is our understanding of the state constitution that the Speaker is a legislative post constructed to serve the members of the Texas House of Representatives as a presiding officer over its operation. Because of the Attorney General’s own admission of a lack of clarity by past Court cases, it now appears that the integrity of Texas Government is still at a critical crossroads.

“Enough is enough. The people of Texas need to let their local representatives know that they’ve had enough of Tom Craddick’s one-man dictatorship.”

buy mp3 files! mp3allz - new allofmp3 alternative music site.
Russian madonna music, beatles mp3
allofmp3 new, mp3sparks music

We couldn’t help notice that among the interim charges released by Speaker Tom Craddick last week was a directive that House members “study voter fraud in Texas.”

When the Republican leadership starts talking about solving “voter fraud,” an attempt to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voters can’t be far behind.

The GOP has tried for years in Texas and around the country to pass laws requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification at the polls. Republicans have argued that more stringent voter ID laws are needed to combat “voter fraud.” The logic goes like this: you need it to drive, to get money out of the bank, and to prove to the police that you are who you say you are, so shouldn’t you need it to vote?

The fact is, independent research has turned up scant evidence of wide-spread voter fraud in Texas.

The studious folks over at the Lone Star Project found that a program run by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott targeting voter fraud only succeeded in questioning a total of 40 ballots and shaking down some senior citizens.

In only one instance, is it alleged that anyone other than a legal, qualified voter cast a ballot. In every other instance, the Attorney General is using a loophole in the Texas election law to prosecute seniors for the simple act of assisting other seniors in casting their mail-in ballot.

(The Project also pointed out that former Tom DeLay crony John Colyandro has started up a ‘think tank’ whose focus will be voter suppression.)

Requiring new hurdles for voters will have the effect of stopping some Texans, who can legally vote, from voting. Requiring a driver’s license would disproportionately suppress voting by the poor, the very young, the very old, and minorities.

A recent study of Indiana’s voter ID law — the most stringent in the nation — found that the rich white folks were most likely to have IDs.

It doesn’t take a campaign strategist to see why the GOP is so interested in this.

In the absence of direct evidence of voter fraud, Craddick reaches for that other great GOP boogie man — illegal immigration. “State and federal law both require all voters to be citizens,” Craddick’s release says. “But current state law requires no photo identification or proof of citizenship when registering to vote or when voting.”

The Republican leadership tried hard to pass voter ID bills the past three sessions. In 2007, the Texas Senate was the only thing standing in the way of the Voter ID bill. Two versions of the bill passed the Texas House, and Gov. Rick Perry made it clear that he was hungry to sign the legislation. But the Senate said no, thanks to the fact that Democrats were united in their opposition. An ailing Sen. Mario Gallegos (D-Houston) even moved his hospital bed into an adjoining room to the Senate chamber just so he could be there to vote against it.

The appearance of voter fraud among Craddick’s interim charges may indicate that the GOP will dust off another voter ID bill when the 81st Legislature convenes in 2009.

That could depend on how the Supreme Court rules. On January 9, the High Court will hear challenges to the constitutionality of voter ID bills in Indiana and Georgia.

Garnet Coleman and Sylvester Turner have much in common. They’re both African-American Democratic state reps from Houston. They’ve both been players in the Texas House for years. They agree on most public policy issues. They should be allies.

Yet they’ve fought an increasingly nasty proxy war with each other for months.

The latest escalation came recently when Turner reportedly used a public speech to openly encourage a primary opponent against Coleman.

The growing animosity between the two reps — who seem so similar from a distance — is a result of the political tumult roiling the Texas House.

As chair of the Legislative Study Group, and as a Democratic leader, Coleman believes his function is to oppose the Republican Speaker, Tom Craddick (R-Midland) — and that includes whoever his lieutenants may be.

As a leader of the so-called Craddick D’s and speaker pro tem, Turner has been a key ally of Craddick’s, a stance that has at times alienated him from fellow Democrats. Coleman believes Turner still stands by the speaker’s side, despite Turner’s own announced candidacy for the big chair.

Coleman says Turner has been trying to recruit a candidate to mount a primary challenge in Coleman’s House District 147, a solidly Democratic slice of Central Houston. Coleman said that overtures have been made to Democrats in public in the district.

“All’s fair in love and war… We all have to live with what we do,” Coleman told me. He said he has not attempted to recruit a primary challenger for Turner. “Like I say, I sleep well at night.”

When asked why not, Coleman said, “It’s just a waste of time… Sylvester is very strong in his district.”

Turner didn’t confirm that he had sought an opponent for Coleman. “I’ll let him speculate on that,” he said by phone on Thursday. “Instead of focusing on me, he needs to focus on the people in his district…. No one gets a free pass.”

Oddly, one flash point between Coleman and Turner has been CHIP — the Children’s Health Insurance Program — which they both support. Of course, CHIP has been a hot issue in Texas ever since 2003, when Craddick’s newly installed Republican majority slashed CHIP and other programs that help the poor.

Many Democrats blame Craddick Ds like Turner for enabling cuts to programs like CHIP.

Turner says he led the fight to restore CHIP last session — although he admitted at the time that the restoration was only partial. His speech on the bill was one of the most memorable of the 2007 session. Turner was brought to tears at the front microphone of the House as he told members that the fight over the speaker’s chair wasn’t worth throwing away the restoration of 100,000 Texas children to the ranks of the insured.

Coleman, who helped pass CHIP in 1999 and has long been closely associated with the program, watched as Turner took the lead on restoring some of the CHIP cuts last session. He voted for the bill, but has criticized it for not going far enough.

“A lot of the work that I did was reversed in 2003,” Coleman said. He said the fact that 100,000 kids were put back on the rolls this session after 200,000 were removed “and say it’s whole? It’s not whole. It’s an inoculation … They know it’s a political liability.”

Turner, meanwhile, credits his support of Craddick as pivotal to passing even a partial CHIP restoration. “If it was up to Garnet Coleman, the CHIP bill would not have passed,” Turner said.

Two Democrats with two different approaches to the Craddick speakership. It’s getting increasingly ugly between them.

Rep. Kevin Bailey’s District 140 is a slice of Central Houston with a significant patch of North Houston thrown in. The district is bordered on the east by I-45, on the west by U.S. 59, and is split down the middle by the Hardy Toll Road. It stretches almost all the way to George Bush Intercontinental Airport on its northern end. It’s also another battleground in the effort to oust Craddick Ds.

Bailey supported Tom Craddick (R-Midland) for Texas Speaker at the beginning of the last regular session as he did in the one before and the one before that. His reward for the past three sessions was a chairmanship. For the first two sessions he was chairman of the General Investigating and Ethics Committee, known for its absence of headline grabbing investigations during those years.

When asked to explain his support for Craddick last session, Bailey noted two reasons. “One, he was going to win, and two, he treated me fairly,” Bailey said. “There was no alternative.”

Now, it’s looking like Bailey will face Armando Walle, a first-time candidate, in a contested Democratic primary—to be decided March 4.

Walle says his run is about addressing issues like Houston’s high dropout rate, financing public education, health insurance, and flooding issues.

“There’s a lack of leadership from the incumbent,” Walle told me. Walle did say that he would not vote for Craddick, although he said he could imagine a scenario where he might vote for a different, more moderate Republican for speaker.

Bailey contends the fact that he is a Craddick Democrat is the only reason Armando Walle is in the race.

The numbers in the district would seem to favor a Hispanic. Out of a total population estimated at 135,116, Hispanics number 96,725. Out of nearly 40,000 registered voters, more than half of those voters (22,119 in fact) have Spanish surnames.

Walle admits that just because there are a majority of Latinos in a given district does not necessarily give the edge to a Hispanic candidate. Walle said “that’s selling the Hispanic vote short. The Hispanic voters are much smarter than that.”

Walle accused Bailey of representing the district poorly. Walle most recently served as a staff member for Congressman Gene Green (D-Houston). Offering an example of Bailey’s shortcomings, Walle said one time Congressman Green “had to get Kevin Bailey out of bed to go vote in Austin.”

Bailey says that’s not true.

“I don’t know what he’s talking about,” Bailey told me. “A number of people have been making up a lot of things.”

After a hectic day of votes in Washington this week, however, Congressman Green told me an interesting story. Green said in 2003, during one of the special sessions on redistricting, he got a call from Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston).

Thompson said a critical vote on redistricting was planned for the next day and asked Green where Kevin Bailey was, since he had been excused from the day’s session for being ill and wasn’t answering his phone. Green said he would call Bailey, but couldn’t get an answer either, he said, so he told Thompson he would go by Bailey’s home the next morning.

“I went by his house early,” Green says, noting that Bailey’s wife answered the door and said Bailey was still in bed. “Just tell him he needs to be in Austin,” Green said.

“How you vote is very important,” Green told me. “That kind of bothered me.”

For the record, Bailey noted in our conversation that he did vote against redistricting, and he joined the Democrats in the quorum-breaking exodus to Ardmore.

Bailey, like other ‘Craddick D’s’ makes the argument that, thanks to his chairmanship of the Urban Affairs Committee, he has performed for his district.

Bailey said his committee produced more pro-union legislation in the last session than in many previous sessions. He’s confident he can fend off a challenger again. “Opponents are nothing new.”

Walle charges Bailey has traded principle for power.

“You don’t compromise the core values of your district for a committee chairmanship,” Walle said.

It remains to be seen whether Bailey’s confidence is justified. One thing is for sure, these guys already have the gloves off.

One of the key battlegrounds in the fight to see who will be the next speaker of the Texas House is in the districts of the ‘Craddick D’s‘ — that’s shorthand for the dozen or so Democrats that openly supported Tom Craddick (R-Midland) in his struggles to hold onto the speaker’s chair in the last regular session. Democratic activists have had quite a bit of success deposing Craddick D’s in the past. Think Ron Wilson, Al Edwards, Glenn Lewis, and Jaime Capelo.

One locus of the action this primary cycle will be the South Texas border county of Hidalgo, where two Hispanic Craddick D’s have strong challengers. The county is split in two: District 36, that hugs the border with Mexico and incorporates the Valley cities of Hidalgo, Mission, McAllen, and Pharr — and District 40, which contains the northern, more rural half of the county and the smaller border communities to the west such as La Joya and Sullivan City.

Rep. Aaron Peña (D-Edinburg) represents District 40. Rep. Kino Flores (D-Hidalgo) represents District 36. Both have been repeatedly rewarded by Craddick for their loyalty. Flores chairs the Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee, while Peña chairs the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee.

Peña is facing a rematch against Eddie Saenz. Saenz is an engineer that ran against Peña in 2004 in a race that featured plenty of mud, money, and bad blood. Peña trounced Saenz in that race, winning 63.45 percent of the vote. At the time, Saenz ran at Peña from the right. This time, Peña has a record that can be attacked from the left. It remains to be seen whether Saenz can make the transition and do the shoeleather campaigning necessary to win. Saenz has already garnered the endorsement of the mayor of Edinburg, according to his blog. Peña also has a blog. This one will be fun to follow. Watch as both candidates blog maddeningly right up until the Texas Democratic primary on March 4.

Former teacher and probation officer Sandra Rodriguez has announced her intent to challenge Kino Flores. Rodriguez has the benefit of being endorsed by the well-funded Annie’s List. Her husband, Fernando Macias, is a former state district judge. Here’s a good preview of the race from the McAllen Monitor. Rodriguez’ best asset is her opponent. Flores has made plenty of enemies in his solidly Democratic district with his heavy handed approach, including a public feud with local power broker Billy Leo. Rodriguez has already attacked Flores for skipping votes on important Democratic issues such as voter ID and helping to enable a leadership that has actively tried to kick children off of CHIP.

In both contests, the issue of the Craddick D’s crucial votes to keep Craddick in power are figuring prominently. Flores and Peña are arguing that their devotion to the speaker has benefited their impoverished communities. Their opponents are questioning the incumbents’ Democratic credentials and their support for the Democrat’s agenda.

Stay tuned.