AG Opinion Request On Craddick Power Likely Won’t Amount To Much

For those of you who will be sitting around on pins and needles for the next few weeks eagerly awaiting Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s opinion on whether House Speker Tom Craddick’s end-of-session power grab was a constitutional use of his power, you can exhale now.

We mean it: stop holding your breath.

The opinion request filed by  House Ways and Means Chairman Jim Keffer (R-Eastland), and Civil Practices Chairman Byron Cook, (R-Corsicana) will likely amount to nothing. But, for the record, here’s what they are asking:

Question 1: “Are the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Texas Senate ‘legislative officers’ as recently held by the Texas Supreme Court, officers who serve at the pleasure of the membership … or are they ’state officers’ subject to removal only as provided in … of the Texas Constitution?”

Question 2: “If you conclude that, contrary to the holdings of the Texas Supreme Court and this Office, the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Texas Senate are subject to removal only by impeachment or other trial and removal proceeding under … the Texas Constitution, what is the effect of the impeachment of either of these officers? That is, does impeachment only remove them from the legislative office of Speaker or President Pro Tempore, or does it expel them from membership in the House/Senate in a manner different from, and inconsistent with … the Texas Constitution?”

Question 3: “If, after the regular legislative session has commenced, a Speaker chosen by the members of the House is removed from that office by any legal means, does the House then have the power to select a new Speaker, or is it required to continue its operations in the absence of a Speaker, in apparent conflict with … the Texas Constitution?

Question 4: If the rules adopted by the Texas House of Representatives give the Speaker of the House unlimited discretion to refuse to recognize members for purposes of presenting any motion whatsoever … do those rules effectively give the Speaker unlimited ability to prevent his removal (by simply refusing to recognize members for the required motions)?”

The first three questions would be hard for Abbott not to answer, as they are pretty straightforward, even for a member of the Federalist Society. However, the last one, the real and genuine doozie, will likely go unanswered. Why? Abbott will probably inform the House members that it isn’t his job to interpret their rules or simply state that the power to recognize is, in fact, as absolute as the vodka of the same name.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It