Posted on 03/29/2003 8:47:10 AM PST by Theodore R.
GOP flexes muscle, gets tort reform House Republicans win fight over capping lawsuits
AUSTIN (AP) — After more than a week of long days and bitter infighting, Republicans showed just how formidable their grip on the Texas Legislature is with their final passage Friday of a House bill designed to limit lawsuits. House Democrats rigorously opposed the measure, every step of the way.
The vote came after lawmakers concluded debate late Thursday night on almost 200 proposed amendments to sweeping legislation intended to transform civil litigation in the state. The process was marred by scandal, partisan politics and fiery debates on the House floor.
A final vote of 94-46 came Friday before House members voted in favor of an accompanying proposal to change the Texas Constitution. Supporters say they believe that a constitutional amendment, which would have to be approved by voters, is necessary to ensure the legality of the lawsuit caps.
The constitutional amendment had been a source of concern because it required a two-thirds majority of the 149-member House, rather than a simple majority. The amendment was finally passed 102-45 Friday afternoon.
House Speaker Tom Craddick, who worked to get the legislation passed, said tort reform was on everyone's agenda and was a campaign issue for the majority of lawmakers.
"This was a major major bill and a major step forward for the state of Texas," Craddick said.
But Democrats who worked to defeat the bill, disagreed.
"This is a disappointing day for the Texas Bill of Rights," said Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco. "Hopefully the Senate will take a closer look at it."
Lawmakers spent much of the morning toiling over other amendments, resolutions and recognitions, in what some said was an attempt to stall for enough favorable votes on the amendment.
Rep. Robert Gutierrez, a McAllen Democrat, largely speculated to be the deciding vote for Republicans, said he was in his district Friday morning when he was offered a chartered jet back to Austin in time for the vote. After arriving in the House chamber, Gutierrez would not say who made the offer.
"I didn't feel like it was the right thing to do, so I paid for it, with my own credit card," he said.
Gutierrez said he was visiting doctors in his district about the measure and voted in favor of the constitutional amendment.
Meanwhile, on the House floor, Democrats continued their attempts to stop the resolution from moving forward with parliamentary points of order, all overruled by Craddick.
Among the provisions of the bill are new rules on class-action lawsuit filings, limits on which parties must pay for damages, new protections for retailers and manufacturers, and a measure that would allow a judge to refer some cases to applicable state agencies before going to trial.
The bill also would place a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage awards such as pain and suffering in medical malpractice lawsuits.
"I have told you at the beginning and I will tell you again now, we have set out to provide meaningful remedies to those who have been wronged and to protect the rights of those who have done no wrong," Rep. Joe Nixon, R-Houston, said in final testimony for the bill he authored.
Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, applauded Nixon's bill.
"With Texas having the distinction of having one of the five worst litigation environments in the United States, lawsuit abuse affects every facet of our lives," Hammond said. "Lawsuit abuse hampers economic development, job creation and pay increases for hardworking Texans."
Democrats sought repeatedly to seek exemptions in the cap, but one after the other, Republicans knocked down the proposed changes — with votes almost starkly along party lines.
One amendment, by Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, would have exempted children, elderly and mentally handicapped people who either cannot work or who earn very little.
"Some people in this society are not measured by their paycheck," Eiland said. "I'm trying to make sure that our most vulnerable populations have a chance to be adequately compensated."
Nixon argued against Eiland's amendment, saying exemptions to the proposed caps would defeat the purpose of limiting frivolous lawsuits.
Eiland also lost efforts to establish guidelines for compensating people who stay at home with their children and other people who do not work.
Proponents of the bill said current law already protects the people whom Eiland's amendments addressed.
Democrats used several legislative maneuvers, but Craddick, a staunch supporter of the measure, was quick to overrule their objections at every turn.
Earlier Thursday, Rep. Chente Quintanilla, an El Paso Democrat, said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Talmadge Heflin offered $5 million in funding for a medical school in exchange for votes on the proposal to limit lawsuits in Texas.
The offer reportedly took place during a meeting between Heflin and three Democratic lawmakers from El Paso. Heflin would not comment on the allegations again Friday.
Dunnam said he hopes Sen. Bill Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant, makes changes Democrats want when the bill reaches the Senate. Ratliff is chairman of the Senate State Affairs Committee, where the bill is expected to be referred.
Ratliff said he would listen to extensive testimony for and against the bill before laying out a Senate version of the bill.
"As I have said on a number of occasions, I have been concerned about what we refer to as a hard cap on non-economic damages in that I believe that there are egregious circumstances that have to be accommodated," Ratliff said.
This is the essence of the matter.
And they will go on and on how stupid this is.
The special interests and trial lawyers will spend MILLIONS in an effort to defeat it. Mark my words.
"With Texas having the distinction of having one of the five worst litigation environments in the United States, lawsuit abuse affects every facet of our lives," Hammond said. "Lawsuit abuse hampers economic development, job creation and pay increases for hardworking Texans."
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Texas ping list!. . .don't be shy.
No, you don't HAVE to be a Texan to get on this list!
Yes, and it did pass by the 2/3 margin necessary for the Constitutional Amendment to pass. It may be a wise move in the long run but it sure seems risky when they could have passed it and let the contitutional issue hang for awhile. Oh well, I am sure they are much smarter politically than I am.
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.