Suspending The 60 Day Rule Gives Speaker Craddick Too Much Power
Vince Leibowitz | Jan 29, 2007 | Comments 2
Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick (R-Midland) has asked all 150 members of the Texas House of Representatives to be present for an important vote on Tuesday.
The vote? It’s to suspend the constitutional rule that prohibits consideration of legislation not designated by the governor as an “emergency” on the House floor during the first 60 days of the session.
Suspending the rule requires a four-fifths majority vote. The rule has been suspended every legislative session except one.
It would take as few as 31 legislators voting against suspending the rule to thwart Craddick’s desires.
House Democratic Leader Jim Dunnam (D-Waco) has said there is no reason to give craddick a “blank check” to aid in speeding up any legislation he desires with very little input from committees.
After all, in 2003, Craddick used this very mechanism as a manner to cram tort reform and an anti-consumer, pro-business agenda down the throats of the Texas Legislature and the people of Texas.
The 80th Legislature is far different from the 78th Legislature, though. For one thing, Democrats have more significant numbers and and are more united than ever before.
One thing remains a constant, however: Speaker Tom Craddick. Craddick, like a leopard, cannot change his spots. His agenda remains the agenda of the people who bought and paid for the Republican Majority in 2002 and have continued to help fund Craddick’s speaker’s PAC—Stars Over Texas—which, through distribution of his largesse, has helped him retain that power, and the campaigns of key Craddick lieutenants and challengers to anti-Craddick Republicans.
You know who we’re talking about: Bob Perry, James Leininger, Texans for Lawsuit Reform, and the Texas Association of Business “anti-consumer” crowd.
For the last two legislative sessions and the special sessions, we have had the agenda of these people and groups crammed down our throat by Tom Craddick. Good legislation to help the people of Texas has taken a back seat to legislation that key contributors wanted.
Not only that, but we’ve seen thousands of children knocked off their health insurance—and worse—by Tom Craddick’s Reign of Legislative Terror.
It’s time to tell Tom Craddick, “Mr. Speaker, not just no, but Hell No.”
Take away the Speaker’s blank check for legislative mayhem. He has proven himself unworthy of it. Look no farther than the recent committee assignments, where supporters were rewarded and enemies back-benched.
Now is not the time for this rule suspension. Democrats and Republicans must unite and take the power out of Craddick’s hands and put it back in the collective hands of the 150-member body politic that is the Texas House of Representtives.
Call your State Representative today, and politely encourage them to vote against suspending the four-fifths “60 day” rule. Here is a list of State Representatives. And, if you don’t know your rep, you can put in your zip code in on that page and find who your rep is.
Filed Under: 80th Legislature
About the Author:


































I hate to disagree with you, BUT based on my study of the legisaltive process for more than 30 years, I must for two reasons:
1. Not suspending the 60-Day Rule gives the GOVERNOR, not the Speaker, control over the legislative agenda—which is the lesson learned by those of us who were around (and or involved) the last time the rule was not suspended. This allows the governor to weal and deal for support for his programs by offering emergency declarations for support.
2. Not suspending the 60-Day Rule means that everything else will pile up at the end of the session—including all those “peoples bills” you and I support. The effect is to dramatically increase the power of the Calendars Committee (i.e.–the Speaker and his “friends”) by making their actions in putting or not putting bills on the Daily Calendar (and when they are placed there) even more important. It also increases the already strong pressure to limit debates on major issues because of lack of time and/or increases the power of the leadership to say, “You have to accept it as it is as we just don’t have the time to change it”.
Delaying action on items until late in the session is already a deliberate and well-honed practice used by Speaker after Speaker (including Pete Laney) to achieve their legislative goals. Not suspending the 60-Day Rule just makes it even easier for him to use time pressure as a tool to advance his/special interest’s goals.
You know, you make a very, very, very valid point. We may need to reconsider our approach on this.
Vince