The Rule Changes

Via the House Journal, here’s the rule that was formally adopted Friday by the Texas House of Representatives restricting debate on HB 1:

(b) Any amendment to HB 1 is not in order unless the amendment is revenue neutral. For purposes of this rule, revenue neutral means that the total cost of the bill may not exceed $2,385,800,000 in this biennium and that there are no other additional costs in any other biennium.

(c) Any amendment is not in order if the effect of the amendment is to decrease the amount of the $0.17 property tax relief rate in HB 1.

(d) For purposes of this rule, the fiscal impact of an amendment will be determined based on estimates provided by the Legislative Budget Board with assistance from the Office of the Comptroller.

(e) This rule does not apply to an amendment that makes an adjustment solely to correct a technical or clerical error.

All the emphasis on the above is mine.

Now for the voting. Here are the votes in favor:

Yeas — Anderson; Bailey; Berman; Blake; Bohac; Bonnen; Branch; Brown, B.; Brown, F.; Callegari; Campbell; Chisum; Cook, B.; Corte, V.; Crabb; Crownover; Davis, J.; Dawson; Delisi; Denny; Eissler; Elkins; England; Flynn; Gattis; Geren; Goodman; Grusendorf; Haggerty; Hamric; Hardcastle; Harper-Brown; Hartnett; Hegar; Hilderbran; Hill; Hope; Howard, C.; Hughes; Hunter; Hupp; Isett, C.N.; Jackson; Keel; Keffer, B.; Keffer, J.; King, P.; Kolkhorst; Krusee; Kuempel; Laubenberg; Luna(*); Madden; McCall; Miller; Morrison; Mowery; Nixon; Orr; Otto; Paxton; Phillips; Pitts; Riddle; Rose(*); Smith, T.; Smith, W.; Smithee; Solomons; Straus; Swinford; Talton; Taylor; Truitt; Van Arsdale; West; Wong; Woolley; Zedler.

Those bolded above have November opponents who will no doubt use this against them. (*) are Democrats voting for the rule change, which includes Patrick Rose (D-Dripping Springs) and Velma Luna (D-Corpus Christi).
And, the votes against:

Nays — Allen, A.; Alonzo; Anchia; Burnam; Casteel; Castro; Chavez; Coleman; Cook, R.; Davis, Y.; Deshotel; Dukes; Dunnam; Dutton; Edwards; Eiland; Escobar; Farabee; Farrar; Flores; Frost; Gallego; Giddings; Gonzales; Gonzalez Toureilles; Goolsby; Guillen; Hamilton; Hernandez; Herrero; Hochberg; Hodge; Homer; Hopson; Howard, D.; Jones, D.; Jones, J.; King, T.; Laney; Leibowitz; Martinez; Martinez Fischer; McClendon; McReynolds; Menendez; Merritt; Moreno, P.; Naishtat; Noriega, R.; Oliveira; Olivo; Peña; Pickett; Puente; Quintanilla; Raymond; Ritter; Rodriguez; Solis; Strama; Thompson; Turner; Uresti; Veasey; Villarreal; Vo.

Note above that Tommy Merritt (R-Longview), fresh from a blistering primary against a Leininger-backed far-to-the-right opponent, voted with Democrats against the rule change. Not surprising, in my view, given that Merritt is prone to do things like this. Carter Casteel (R-New Braunfels), cast a vote against the legislation. She was also targeted (sadly, with success) by a Leininger-backed candidate. Delwin Jones, another targeted by Leininger, voted against, too.
But, others hit by Leininger-backed candidates did vote with their party including Geren and Roy Blake, Jr. It’s a little late for Blake, though, given he too was defeated by a Leininger candidate.

Here’s the rule change that was done for HB2:

(a) All original amendments that will be offered during second reading consideration of HB 2 must be filed with the chief clerk not later than 5 p.m. on Saturday, April 22, 2006.

(b) An amendment is not in order:

(1) if it seeks to remove or alter the dedication of revenue described in this bill to any purpose other than the reduction of school district maintenance and operations tax rates to rates that are less than the rates in effect on January 1, 2006.

(2) if the revenue proposed to be added by an amendment to this bill is dedicated to any purpose other than the reduction of school district maintenance and operations tax rates to rates that are less than the rates in effect on January 1, 2006.

(c) For purposes of this rule, the fiscal impact of an amendment will be determined based on estimates provided by the Legislative Budget Board with assistance from the Office of the Comptroller.

(d) This rule does not apply to an amendment that makes an adjustment solely to correct a technical or clerical error.

This amendment stifels anything that will not be dedicated solely to M&O tax relief. This one passed by a much more narrow margin (70-73):

Voting Yes: Anderson; Berman; Blake; Bohac; Bonnen; Branch; Brown, B.; Brown, F.; Callegari; Campbell; Chisum; Cook, B.; Corte, V.; Crabb; Crownover; Davis, J.; Dawson; Delisi; Denny; Eissler; Elkins; England; Flynn; Gattis; Geren; Goodman; Grusendorf; Hamric; Hardcastle; Harper-Brown; Hartnett; Hegar; Hilderbran; Hill; Hope; Howard, C.; Hughes; Hupp; Isett, C.N.; Jackson; Keel; Keffer, B.; Keffer, J.; King, P.; Kolkhorst; Krusee; Kuempel; Laubenberg; Madden; McCall; Miller; Morrison; Mowery; Nixon; Orr; Otto; Paxton; Phillips; Pitts; Riddle; Rose; Smith, T.; Smith, W.; Smithee; Solomons; Straus; Swinford; Talton; Taylor; Truitt; Van Arsdale; West; Wong; Woolley; Zedler.

Again, Patrick Rose (D-Dripping Springs) was on the “yes” side.

Voting No: Alonzo; Anchia; Bailey; Burnam; Casteel; Castro; Chavez; Coleman; Cook, R.; Davis, Y.; Deshotel; Dukes; Dunnam; Dutton; Edwards; Eiland; Escobar; Farabee; Farrar; Flores; Frost; Gallego; Giddings; Gonzales; Gonzalez Toureilles; Goolsby; Guillen; Haggerty; Hamilton; Hernandez; Herrero; Hochberg; Hodge; Homer; Hopson; Howard, D.; Hunter; Jones, D.; King, T.; Laney; Leibowitz; Luna; Martinez; Martinez Fischer; McClendon; McReynolds; Menendez; Merritt; Moreno, P.; Naishtat; Noriega, R.; Oliveira; Olivo; Peña; Puente; Quintanilla; Raymond; Ritter; Rodriguez; Solis; Strama; Thompson; Turner; Uresti; Veasey; Villarreal; Vo.

The remainder of the changover votes that make the difference between the 79-66 adoption of the HB 1 rule and the more narrow adoption 70-73 of the HB 2 rule defeat were, I believe, were some absences in voting on the HB1 rule and different absesnces on the HB 2 rule. Note that Luna was back with most D’s on this one.

Sadly, both of these rule changes passed.
This may have gone the other way and forced Craddick to vote (he was present but not voting) if Patrick Rose had switched his vote (then it would have been 71-72), and had another Republican switched over (71-71). Alma Allen, who was excused due to business in her district, would have been another sure-fire vote against this one if we’d had Rose. Then, without another GOP vote, it would have been 71-71. I’m not daring to say anything bad about Alma Allen, becuase she’s a good Democrat, it just so happens that during a special, sometimes the members do have to be elsewhere. I’d love to know, though, why Rose voted for both of thses.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It