 |
|---|
| Lighten Up, Francis! |
| Fundraising posts only happen quarterly, and are gone as soon as we meet the goal. Help make it happen. |
Posted on 07/10/2003 10:24:27 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
AUSTIN -- Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick overstepped his authority by dispatching state troopers to search for Democratic state representatives who bolted in May to kill a redistricting bill, a state district judge ruled Thursday.
State District Judge Charles Campbell ruled that a state government code defining the role and limits of Texas Department of Public Safety officers superseded a House rule employed by Craddick to hunt down the legislators.
More than 50 Democratic representatives fled the Capitol May 12. Craddick, citing House rules, ordered the DPS to try to find the missing legislators. Most of them soon turned up in Ardmore, Okla., outside DPS jurisdiction.
Their absence deprived the House of a quorum until a deadline passed for debating a redistricting bill that would have increased Texas' Republican representation in the U.S. House.
"Based on this judge's ruling, what (Craddick) did was illegal," said state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, who sought a court ruling on whether it was legal for state troopers to be used in the search for the "Killer D's."
"Basically what the judge is saying is exactly what the Killer D's had been saying all along -- the (DPS) needs to be chasing criminals and not doing the political work of the speaker," said Burnam, one of the Democrats who went to Ardmore.
The judge threw out as moot Burnam's claim that DPS illegally destroyed records relating to the search. The department contended federal law required shredding of the records. Last week, a Travis County grand jury also cleared the agency of wrongdoing in the record destruction.
Angela Hale, spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office, said the office would consider appealing the portion of Campbell's ruling relating to the speaker's use of DPS officers in the search.
Bob Richter, spokesman for Craddick, R-Midland, said the speaker had not seen the ruling and could not comment.
Kathy Walt, spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Perry, also declined comment until, saying lawyers for the governor's office had not yet viewed the ruling.
In his ruling, Campbell, a former Democratic Texas Court of Criminal Appeals justice, said Craddick relied on a House rule that allows for the return of absent lawmakers, including arrests, by "the sergeant-at-arms or an officer appointed by the sergeant-at-arms for that purpose."
But Campbell said that reliance on that rule to involve DPS troopers was "unfounded" because it was superseded by a section of the state Government Code that "defines, and therefore limits, the role of DPS" to law enforcement and crime prevention.
Although the ruling appears to limit legislative leaders' ability to hunt for lawmakers who break quorum, it was not immediately clear Thursday night whether Campbell's ruling would have any practical effect on the ongoing redistricting fight.
Democrats did not attempt to break quorum this week when the House, meeting in special session, voted out a redistricting bill. Senate Democrats have parliamentary tools short of breaking quorum that they might use in their efforts against redistricting.
Democrats also have accused Craddick and U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, of improperly enlisting federal agencies in the effort to get the missing legislators back to Austin.
DeLay pushed for the Legislature to consider congressional redistricting in the regular session, and also is backing it in the special session now under way.
When the DPS was searching for a plane belonging to one of the missing Democrats, it sought the help of the Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center, an agency of the federal Department of Homeland Security. And DeLay has acknowledged that his staff sought help from the Federal Aviation Administration to get flight information on the plane.
Democrats contend those were inappropriate uses of federal resources.
The Homeland Security inspector general investigated that complaint, but last month released a report exonerating its personnel of wrongdoing.
On Thursday, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman D-Conn., asked the Department of Homeland Security to reopen that investigation. His request was made before the Travis County court ruling, and apparently was unrelated, although he mentioned the DPS' role in contacting the interdiction agency.
"I am troubled that your investigation has left many questions unanswered about the involvement of DHS and its Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center in this partisan political dispute -- and failed to garner any information about the Texas Department of Public Safety's apparent intentional misuse of DHS resources," Lieberman wrote.
|
|---|
| Lighten Up, Francis! |
| Fundraising posts only happen quarterly, and are gone as soon as we meet the goal. Help make it happen. |
Nobody except the liberal newspapers cares.
The fact is that it's the Texas Constitution that authorized the arrest of the Ardmore Rats, and this ruling is flat out wrong. We should appeal it, just to set the record straight, although when it's reversed the newspapers will downplay it and attribute it to the fact that the appellate justices are Republican.
Angela Hale, spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office, said the office would consider appealing the portion of Campbell's ruling relating to the speaker's use of DPS officers in the search.I agree with you, Dog Gone. They SHOULD appeal this.
Democrats did not attempt to break quorum this week when the House, meeting in special session, voted out a redistricting bill. Senate Democrats have parliamentary tools short of breaking quorum that they might use in their efforts against redistricting.
What am I missing here? The House PASSED a redistricting bill and sent it to the Senate. What kind of bias is this?
The Attorney General will almost certainly appeal this ruling on their behalf. The only argument against appealing is that the decision has no practical effect at the moment.
Thanks, DG !The only argument against appealing is that the decision has no practical effect at the moment.
It sure sets a bad precedent though. Leaves the door WIDE open for the 'RATS WHEN/if they decide to obstruct again. 'Hey, the court gave us a pass last time. Let's desert our duty again. The GOP can't stop us.' Right ?
Appeal on principle. The higher court should set it straight. OR, if they don't, it will show the legislature that they might want to pass a law with ENFORCEMENT TEETH to stop this kind of cr** !! For heaven sakes. The constitution says it's up to the House powers that be to round 'em up, anyway !
< /Rant >
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.