SENATE SANCTIONS TEXAS 11 WITH FINES

www.quorumreport.com ^ | 8/12/03 | Harvey (the biased) Kronberg

[harpu]

After hours of backroom meetings, seventeen Senators convened to sanction their eleven colleagues in New Mexico. Senator Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound) introduced a resolution imposing fines to be paid out of private funds beginning August 14. The fines would begin at $1,000 a day and double per day up to $5,000 per day until the end of the second called-session.

After parliamentary inquiry by Senator Ken Armbrister (D-Victoria), Nelson moved adoption. Although there were no apparent objections, the record shows that Armbrister voted no.

The Senate acted upon a letter from Attorney General Greg Abbott concurring with an internal memo prepared by attorney Spencer Reid. The memo quotes the Constitution saying that remaining members can compel attendance "under such penalties as each House may provide."

[goldstategop]

We'll see how long they'll hold out in Albuquerque. Most people can't pay a $1,000 a day much less than a $5,000 a day fine. Maybe the DNC can bail then out.

[goldstategop]

They're gonna be sleepless huh?? Poor babies!

[pogo101]

So they've got a quorum to sanction their colleagues, but not a quorum to pass redistricting?

Correct, because different rules apply. The state constitution requires a 2/3 quorum to do most business, but less than that 2/3 may adjourn or seek to compel attendance of absent members. Tx. Const. Art. 3, sec. 10 ("Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.").

In any event, what no news story I've seen mentions is that the Chicken Ds clearly are in violation of Rule 5.03 ("No member shall absent himself or herself from the sessions of the Senate without leave unless the member be sick or unable to attend").

Although Rule 5.04 doesn't provide for any penalty that I can see against absent members -- just for their arrest and haling into the Senate chamber -- it appears that the new fines provision, just passed, addresses that gap.

As to passing new rules, a mere majority of all members, not a majority of those members who are present, can do so. See Rule 16.07.

[Centurion2000]

Better idea : declare the seats vacant and abandoned.

[deport]

Levying fines on attendance does not require a quorum.

---

This will get interesting as the dems are arguing that no rules were in place for a fine to be levied thus the rules can't be changed without the normal process.... It is going to be an interpretation of the Art in the Constitution as to what it meant.....

[pogo101]

*"Jeopardy" theme plays*

Answer is?

Go ahead and challenge this in courts, chicken Ds. SCOTX will uphold the rule. And SCOTUS won't grant cert. Thank you for your generous contributions to the Texas Treasurer's General Fund, to the order of which you will kindly make your checks payable ... lest otherwise we come for your furniture. (That's your home furniture, not your legislative office's.)

[Dog Gone]

The Chickens have to know that their financial records regarding this stunt are subject to audit. They would be absolutely stupid to assume otherwise.

Being a Texas legislator is a part time job. None of these guys can afford to rack up a $100,000 personal debt, even if the Texas Democrat Party or other surrogates try to fight it in court for them.

[Flyer]

Cool, A Texas size ZOT!

[Dog Gone]

This will get interesting as the dems are arguing that no rules were in place for a fine to be levied thus the rules can't be changed without the normal process.... It is going to be an interpretation of the Art in the Constitution as to what it meant.....

I certainly wouldn't want to be the Dem's attorney making that argument. The language is pretty plain, and it was clearly intended to empower the remaining senators to compel attendance as they saw fit.

[harpu]

Excused Senators; Chris Harris (R-Ft. Worth) and John Carona (R-Dallas)

[battousai]

hmm tack on another zero to those numbers and then we're talking :)

[Dog Gone]

Gosh, I'd love to see the same Texas philosophy exported to DC. Wouldn't it be great if we could fine the Tom Daschle $5,000 a day for refusing to vote on judicial nominees?

I realize there's no legal mechanism for doing so, but it's the attitude I'm talking about.

[deport]

Thanks......

[Cyber Liberty]

Hey, Chad...you see post #12? Sez right there they can't pick their donors' pockets.

I mentioned on an earlier thread that they needed to insist on not being able to use campaign or office funds. I don't see the office budgets at issue here, so they might just grab from that wallet.

[Flyer]

I realize there's no legal mechanism for doing so

Yeah, it's tough being on the team that plays by the rules.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Oh, I know - but these freaks will end up with "leal defense funds" etc... ever seen the Clintons pay for theirs out-of-pocket?

You'll see - they may even try to hide it, but guaranteed - it'll be someone else's money. It always is with 'rats.

[PetroniDE]

I have an idea. When the Texas 11 start complaining that "they don't have the money", they will ask for contributions from the people. If you have any leftover Clinton $3 or Gore $4 bills, send them some "money".

[humblegunner]

Dang, I can't see with these mortal eyes!

[Drango]

I realize there's no legal mechanism for doing so, but it's the attitude I'm talking about.

I believe both the House and Senate can set their own rules, and if I'm wrong someone will correct me. So there is a legal mechanism available, *IF* they chose to pass a rule.

[Cyber Liberty]

No doubt that in the end it will be someone else's money. Legal Defense Fund will for sure be the mechanism here.

HOWEVER, it takes, uh, some time to get the actual buckeroos into the "fund", and the TX11 might be in less accomodating quarters than a Marriott while the donations slowly roll in....

(especailly all those FReeper 1¢ Visa donations)