Dewhurst: I'm honoring tradition and precedent

IN a recent editorial, the Chronicle urged me to adhere to Texas Senate tradition as the Legislature addresses congressional redistricting during a special session. Of course, I will do that -- but the result may not be what the Editorial Board has in mind.

One Senate tradition is showing up for work just like every hard-working Texan does every day. Contrary to what our Senate Democrats say, there is no right in the Texas Constitution for legislators to break a quorum. In fact, the constitution provides each legislative house with the ability to compel attendance of absent members to achieve a quorum.

Another Senate tradition is completing the work at hand. Eleven of our Senate Democrats left town on July 28 before we completed the special session. That left stranded $120 million in badly needed new highway funding, $800 million that needs to be reclassified to avoid harming school districts, and $676 million that must be appropriated into general revenue. This money should be spent on public education, increasing Medicaid and CHIP medical provider reimbursement rates, and help for children, the frail and elderly.

When Senate Democrats fled the state, they tried to claim that Senate tradition always requires a two-thirds vote on any matter. That's partisan spin. Tradition and precedent actually dictate that the two-thirds vote should not govern in redistricting, particularly in special sessions.

In 1971, 1981 and 1992 special sessions on redistricting, Lt. Govs. Ben Barnes, Bill Hobby and Bob Bullock did not require a two-thirds vote on redistricting. In fact, the two-thirds vote was not used in at least 20 special legislative sessions in the last half-century alone.

The situation facing a 1992 redistricting special session was almost identical to that faced by the Legislature this summer. A three-judge federal court in late 1991 had drawn a state legislative map that most Senate Democrats found objectionable. The court map, one publication said, dramatically shifts the balance of power in the Senate, creating at least the opportunity for a Republican majority.

At a special session called by Gov. Ann Richards starting Jan. 2, 1992, Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, a Democrat, publicly announced that he did not have 21 votes, or a two-thirds margin, to change the court map. So he purposefully abandoned the two-thirds tradition, establishing what we now know as the Bullock Precedent.

There were only nine Republicans in the 31-member Senate at the time, but three Democrats also preferred the court-drawn map. But none of the 12 senators refused to participate in the process. They didn't run away to New Mexico or Oklahoma. Instead, they stayed and fought for what they believed in. In the end, the majority approved its Senate map by an 18 to 12 vote, well short of the two-thirds usually required.

Interestingly enough, with Democrats in the majority, there were no editorials written in 1992 demanding that the two-thirds vote be maintained.

Congressional districts in Texas today are essentially those drawn by a partisan Legislature in 1991. At that time, a national publication called the Texas map the most outrageously gerrymandered redistricting effort in the nation, resulting in Democratic strength in our congressional delegation well beyond its representation among voters.

Our congressional lines are even more outdated today. When the Legislature failed to draw new lines to accommodate Texas' two new congressional seats in 2001, the job fell to a federal court. The judges made the fewest changes possible to the existing 1991 map, in essence protecting incumbents.

Democrats, now in a minority, understandably want to cling to that 1991 map for as long as possible. But the plan's integrity, always dubious, is now in tatters. It's even more unrepresentative today, thanks to population changes, voting trends and distortions caused by incumbency, including taxpayer-paid staff, free mailing privileges, fund-raising advantages and media coverage.

The result is unfair representation. For example, a strong majority of Texas citizens support President Bush and his policies, while the majority of the state's congressional delegation does not.

State legislators, elected representatives of the people, have a constitutional duty to draw legislative seats. Even the president pro tem of the New Mexico Senate -- a Democrat and one of our senator's Albuquerque hosts -- declared earlier this year that redistricting should be done by legislators, not by the courts.

The two-thirds vote is a useful management tool employed by lieutenant governors to encourage consensus, bipartisanship and civility in the Texas Senate during debate on policy legislation that affects Texas citizens. I value that tradition and will do everything in my power to retain it.

But as Lt. Govs. Bullock, Barnes and Hobby and others have recognized, that tradition must be set aside on redistricting, particularly in special session. I will honor the precedents created by virtually all lieutenant governors -- my predecessors -- over recent decades. At the end of the day, in a democracy, the majority decides.

Roddy Stinson of the San Antonio Express hits another Home Run

Roddy Stinson: Runagate Eleven's message to Texas youth: Don't fight. Hide!

Web Posted : 07/31/2003 12:00 AM

What a wonderful message Leticia Van de Putte and her fellow Democratic state senators have sent to the young people of Texas:
"Boys and girls, when the going gets tough, when you face overwhelming odds, when it appears you might lose the game ... don't do a gut check, don't stand and fight. Walk off the field. Take it on the lam. Run away and hide.

"Better still, get a rich friend to send a private jet to the nearest open field so you and your teammates can hightail it in style."

Oh, and between now and then, boys and girls, carry this Associated Press report in your gym bag and read it every so often to remind yourself that jellyfish can live well:

"Democratic Texas senators who are squabbling with their Republican counterparts over the congressional redistricting holed up in a New Mexico hotel on Tuesday to discuss their strategy.

"The 11 senators entered a room to dine on a breakfast of strawberries, melons, cereal and coffee. ..."

Such is the life of a runaway at Albuquerque's Marriott Pyramid North.

"... a Southwestern-style hotel, featuring an open, 10-story atrium with a rock waterfall and lush greenery ... with two restaurants and a lobby lounge, indoor/outdoor pool and fitness room."

San Antonio's Van de Putte, the Albuquerque-jaunt organizer and the unofficial spokesperson for the Runagate Eleven, worked up an appetite for her strawberry breakfast with a Monday night news conference in which she said:

"This is not about Democrats. It's about democracy, and it's about civil rights."

What moonshine.

With Van de Putte, it is ALWAYS about Democrats. But not just any Democrats. Her undying loyalty is to the shabbiest segment of the Democratic Party.

Lest Texans have forgotten ...

In the spring of 1994, Van de Putte, then a state representative, was one of several San Antonio legislators who tried to defeat incumbent Democratic Texas Supreme Court Justice Raul Gonzalez, one of the most honest, decent jurists to ever grace the state's courts

His sin: He refused to kowtow to the state's personal-injury lawyers, the sugar daddies of South Texas Democrats.

During a political campaign that was savage even by Texas standards, the trial lawyers and their political allies pummeled Gonzalez unmercifully.

One of the supporters of the savagery was Leticia Van de Putte, who endorsed Gonzalez's opponent, Rene Haas, the wife of a Corpus Christi trial lawyer.

How ugly was Haas' campaign against Gonzalez?

Editorial writers around the state called it "despicable," "unconscionable" and "a desperate pursuit of political power" that "exceeded the boundaries of taste and truth."

Throughout that desperate pursuit, a smiling Van de Putte was pictured in pro-Haas news releases.

Nine years later, the same smiling face is being featured in broadcasts from Albuquerque, and the politico behind it is telling the world, "It's about democracy and civil rights."

Not true in 1994. Not true in 2003.

It is still about a desperate pursuit of political power.

Or in the case of the Runagate Eleven and the trial lawyers who whisper in their ears, an attempt to hold on to power.

Unfortunately for them, the political publicity stunt is limpidly transparent.

Between dining on melons and strolling through lush greenery, Van de Putte and her colleagues may cry "civil rights" and trumpet their nobility. But they are only fooling themselves.

When the New Mexico vacation is over and the "democracy" charade is done, the senators will return to a state whose voters simply don't believe the humbug anymore.

To contact Roddy Stinson, call (210) 250-3155 or e-mail rstinson@express-news.net. His column appears on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays.

I really don't understand this stunt by the Rats. This has gone way too far for the Republicans to cave in now. They can't stay in New Mexico forever, and eventually the Republicans are going to win. They might as well admit it.

I hope you're right. But today there are two rumblings that suggest the Rat tantrum might work. First, DoJ preclearance requires months of court battles, and Perry suggests that September starts to push things. No preclearance in time and the current map will stay in effect in 2004, which would possibly kill the momentum for a fair remap. Second, Rep. Phil King has filed a bill (according to the website Quorum Report) "empower[ing] the Secretary of State to move back the deadline for candidates to file for Congress in the event redistricting battles are not resolved in time." I can already hear the Rat response to the latter that Republicans are changing the election law -- aaaaaaaagh! Republicans will counter that the Dems have done this in NJ, FL, and a myriad of other places, with both election law and really anything else that can be shoved through an accomodating activist court, and the Dems will rant and call us racists and despots. They'll say that this is an unprecedented right-wing power grab. It'll be the "Republicans' fault" -- especially Tom DeLay's -- just like it's our fault that the fleeing 11 Rats didn't have time to pack clean underwear before they ran to NM this time around.

I don't know what this was in reference to, but a long time ago FReeper uglybiker had a great quote (so funny I had to copy it) once that is so often relevant in the public sphere. I'm going to use here, hope s/he doesn't mind: "Just goes to show, that no matter what happens, if it's bad; it's the Republicans' fault. I saw a dead dog beside the road today. Must've been run over by a Republican. My butt itches. It's the Republicans' fault."

Oh, and check out THIS article too, btw (if you haven't seen it already) ...
This was written by Freeper Congressman Billybob ...
08-18-2003
"Texans for Sale or Rent"

[To the Roger Miller tune, Trailers for sale or rent] ...
Texans for sale or rent / Having our room service sent / Lounging ‘round by the pools / Playing our whole state for fools ....
We know every lawyer in every court / And all of their partners, and all of their torts / And every hangout, in every town/ And every lock that ain't locked when no one's around ....
Texans for sale or rent ....

With my apologies to the good Freepers and lawyers here. No offense intended ...
And that article is a LOT more than that little song parody, too !

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.