This week, House Speaker Dustin Burrows’ leadership team had a problem. They had to ban Democrat chairs without it being done with Republicans voting as a bloc against Democrats who wouldn’t want to lose their power.

They needed to reward the Democrats who helped Burrows secure the speaker’s gavel, but they knew they also needed to pacify the incensed grassroots activists. They also didn’t want Republican members to have to vote on the specifics of the payoffs that they had planned for the minority party. 

These giveaways included mandating that all committee vice chairs are Democrats. Previously, this title was nothing more than that, a title, but under this new deal the position comes with power. The new rules give vice chairs the authority to force their bills to be heard, taking up valuable and limited committee time. They also empowered vice chairmanships to commission impact studies on bills and invite their own testimony on legislation. These last two items are less impactful on conservative policy than the ability to force Democrat bills to be heard.

State Rep. Todd Hunter (R-Corpus Christi) also implied that these vice chairs would be given money. Per Capitol sources, the number currently being discussed is $4,000 a month. If that is true and this passes in the upcoming housekeeping resolution, the result would be $2,000,000 in additional taxpayer money that Democrats now have for Democrat staff. It has not been disclosed as to whether the additional money will be only for the session or will span the entire interim. 

It’s undeniable that Democrats got what they believe is a good deal, and they haven’t been bashful about sharing that. In a press conference after the vote, Democrat State Rep. Ramon Romero bragged that Democrats “[had] a lot to bring home today because of the positions and powers that were gained through vice chairmanships.”

Democrats no longer have the eight chairmanships that they had previously, but one could argue what they got in exchange is just as much, slightly less, or even more power than they had last session. Some Republican members have stated that, even though they opposed the new power given to vice chairs, they believed that the net outcome was better for Republicans and that’s why they voted for the rules package.

This position was articulated well by Republican State Reps. Daniel Alders (Tyler) and Matt Morgan (Richmond).

My personal view is that Democrats obtained more power than they had previously. If Democrat State Rep. Joe Moody ends up being the vice chair of State Affairs, he has more power than he would have had as chair of Criminal Jurisprudence or County Affairs. 

So, how would House Leadership ensure that the deal they made with Democrats was not something for which each member had to take responsibility?

This is when “moving the previous question” comes into play. 

As explained by State Rep. Mike Schofield (R-Katy) during debate, the motion is considered the “nuclear option” in the Texas House. The use of it is incredibly rare, as noted by State Rep. Tony Tinderholt (R-Arlington).

What this motion allowed was for a majority of the membership to force an up or down vote on the rules immediately, killing every single conservative amendment that had been filed. These amendments were filed by Republicans to reduce the power that Democrats were given in the rules. 

Democrats voted for the motion, because the deal offered to them in the rules was not only a win, but as good as it could possibly get. If the amendments that would weaken their power were voted on, it could be that some would pass and their power would be reduced. 

The Republicans who voted to end debate benefit from not having to take a position on the power given to Democrats, and are still able to say “We banned Democrat chairs.” To be clear, some of the Republicans who voted to shut down debate likely knew that their upcoming committee appointments would be significantly affected by their vote on this motion. They will hopefully avoid using this kind of draconian tactic in the future.

Under former Speakers Straus, Bonnen, and Phelan, the rules were debated and then up or down votes were taken on various amendments that minority and majority party members wanted considered. Under the first week of the Burrows regime, in what seems to be the first time ever, the rules were rammed through without a single amendment being considered. 

Texans should appreciate the 35 Texas House GOP members who stood up for not only the conservative amendments that were killed, but for preserving a Texas House that is as deliberative as it was under Phelan, Bonnen, and Straus. It seems ironic and strange, but so far those past speaker regimes were more deliberative and respectful of the members Texans elected to serve.

The 35 members who opposed this motion include:

Daniel Alders, Ben Bumgarner, Briscoe Cain, David Cook, Mark Dorazio, Caroline Harris-Davila, Brian Harrison, Richard Hayes, Janis Holt, Andy Hopper, Carrie Isaac, Marc LaHood, Terri Leo-Wilson, Mitch Little, AJ Louderback, David Lowe, JM Lozano, Shelley Luther, Brent Money, Matt Morgan, Mike Olcott, Tom Oliverson, Dennis Paul, Katrina Pierson, Keresa Richardson, Nate Schatzline, Mike Schofield, Alan Schoolcraft, Joanne Shofner, Shelby Slawson, Valoree Swanson, Tony Tinderholt, Steve Toth, Cody Vasut and Wes Virdell.

People often say they don’t want Texas to be more like Washington D.C.

The U.S. House of Representatives is known as a legislative body where a select few decide what the body as a whole gets to vote on and everyone is forced to vote up or down on a large package that has already been agreed upon by a mere handful. 

This has never been how the Texas House operates historically, but it is exactly how Speaker Dustin Burrows and his coalition of Democrats and Republicans operated on Thursday.

The good news is it’s early, and there is time to course correct for those who voted to shut down debate and kill important amendments. Time will tell if the Texas House becomes a lot more like the Swamp or if this motion is appropriately returned to its rare use.

This is a commentary published with the author’s permission. If you wish to submit a commentary to Texas Scorecard, please submit your article to submission@texasscorecard.com.

Luke Macias

Luke is a Texas based conservative political consultant and host of the Luke Macias Show podcast.

RELATED POSTS