Why Is The State Board Of Education Asking Questions About Suspending Its Supermajority Voting Requirements?

Earlier this month, the State Board of Education requested an Opinion from the Texas Attorney General concerning whether or not it may suspend its constitutionally and statutorially imposed “supermajority” voting requirements.

In her request for an opinion, SBOE Chairwoman Geraldine “Tincy” Miller (R-Dallas), asked General Abbott:

1.) May a public body, consistent with 311.013, Government Code, adopt a procedural rule that requires a vote greater than a majority of the members fixed by statute? Please assume for purposes of this question that no statutory or constitutional provision requires more than a majority vote.
2.) If your answer to my first question is “yes”, may that body suspend a procedural rule by a vote of the majority of the members fixed by statute pursuant to Section 311.013, Government Code?

This is a fairly sizeable clue that the Republican majority on the State Board of Education wants to be able to side-step supermajority voting requirements which have halted the board’s conservative majority from totally ruining the education system in Texas.

Traditionally, supermajority voting requirements are designed to prevent a simple majority from cramming an unpopular or controversial idea through a body and forcing that will upon the populious, and to protect the minority in a particular body.

For the SBOE, several different things require a supermajority vote.

The supermajority voting requirement for the SBOE is codified at two places in the education code and is written into the Texas Constitution.

First, Section 7.102(f) of the Education Code provides that certain rules may take effect earlier than statutorily provided if a two-thirds vote of the SBOE deems it necessary.

While that sounds innocuous, the fact remains that Section 7.102(f) and the supermajority voting requirement relates to a lengthy list of more than 30 possible board actions including:

•developing and updating a long-range plan for public education

•entering into contracts for accepting grants

•accepting gifts and/or donations

•establishment of curriculum and graduation requirements

•establishment of standards of performance considered satisfactory on student assessment instruments

•creation of special purpose school districts

•granting an open-enrollment charter

•adopting rules to carry out curriculum required or authorized for certain courses of study

•Establishment of guidelines for credit by examination
•Adoption and purchase or license of textbooks, as well as rules for adoption of textbooks 

•Investment in the Permanent School Fund within the limits and authority granted by Section 5, Article VII, Texas Constitution and Chapter 43, Texas Education Code

Clearly, without supermajority voting requirements, certian decisions concerning controversial items such as textbooks  could easily be further hijacked by the right-wing majority on the board.
The second mention of supermajority voting in the Education Code is found at Section 21.042, which concerns SBOE rejection of State Board for Educator Certification rules:

§ 21.042. APPROVAL OF RULES.  The State Board for Educator Certification must submit a written copy of each rule it  proposes to adopt to the State Board of Education for review.  The  State Board of Education may reject a proposed rule by a vote of at  least two-thirds of the members of the board present and voting….

While this is probably not as problematic, it could allow the SBOE to essentially lessen the requirements for teacher certification at its own leisure by rejecting SBEC rules that are more strict than those already in existance.
The final supermajority clause is contained in the Texas Constitution at  Article VII, Sec V(a)(1)(a). This concerns the rate of and rules concerning distribution of funds from the Permanent School Fund, which must be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the SBOE.

So, what gives with the SBOE’s desire to usurp the two-thirds majority voting requirements?

To me, this is another clear attempt by the ultra-conservative right-wing majority on the Board to further back-bench the minority and attempt to do what they can to continue try and propound their radical, anti-progressive agenda.