GOP wants quick ruling on legality of Senate rules

Houston Chronicle ^ | Aug. 20, 2003, 1:26PM | By R.G. RATCLIFFE and RACHEL GRAVES

[vannrox]

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Local & State

Aug. 20, 2003, 1:26PM

GOP wants quick ruling on legality of Senate rules

By R.G. RATCLIFFE and RACHEL GRAVES
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle

AUSTIN -- Republican state officials are asking federal authorities for an expedited ruling that the Voting Rights Act does not apply to the Senate rules that prompted 11 Democratic senators to flee to New Mexico.

"Our goal is to get this resolved as quickly as possible," said Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz.

Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio, Senate Democratic Caucus chair, said Lt. Gov. DavidDewhurst's change in Senate procedure "discriminates against voters protected under the Voting Rights Act."

She said the state's lawyers are "belatedly and secretly" seeking U.S. Justice Department approval.

In a related matter Tuesday, a deadline passed that the runaway Democrats had set for Republicans to rescind sanctions against them, without the Democrats taking their threatened legal action.

The 11 senators -- two blacks, seven Hispanics and two Anglos who represent minority districts -- fled to Albuquerque July 28 after Dewhurst changed a procedure so a Republican congressional redistricting plan could pass when Gov. Rick Perry called a second special legislative session.

The procedure, traditionally in place in the Senate, allows a third of the Senate's 31 members to block a bill from coming up for debate. With the rule in effect during the first special session, Democrats were able to block redistricting. Without it in the second session, they could only prevent a vote by breaking quorum.

The Democrats filed a federal lawsuit in Laredo claiming Dewhurst violated minority voting rights when he changed the procedure without first obtaining permission from the Justice Department. The case is before U.S. District Judge George Kazen.

In filings with that court and with the U.S. Justice Department, the state attorney general and secretary of state argue that the Voting Rights Act does not apply to the Senate's internal rules.

But just in case it does, Assistant Secretary of State Geoffrey Connor asked the Justice Department to bless Dewhurst's actions as legal because the federal law is intended to protect "the ability of voters (as opposed to legislators) to vote."

Both filings argue that the Voting Rights Act does not apply to state Senate rules governing the flow of legislation.

Van de Putte said changing the Senate procedure "prevents us from protecting the rights and political participation of the millions of Texans they (Republicans) seek to disenfranchise."

The Democrats had set a 3 p.m. Tuesday deadline for the Republicans to rescind sanctions and fines or face possible civil or criminal action.

"Be assured, we're going to act," said Sen. Royce West of Dallas. "But we'll dictate the timetable."

Dewhurst said the two official misconduct criminal statutes that Democrats are threatening to use against Republican senators do not apply.

"These are only cases in which a public official knowingly and intentionally violates state law," he said. "Everything we've done in the state Senate is with the advice and counsel of the attorney general."

Dewhurst said a civil law on race discrimination does not apply because the sanctions were based on the missing senators' absence, not on the fact that nine of the 11 are minorities.

Also on Tuesday, Sen. Bill Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant, said he has been so upset by the Senate's leveling sanctions against the missing members that he thought about resigning. Ratliff served as lieutenant governor in the 2001 legislative session, after Perry was promoted to governor when George W. Bush was elected president.

Ratliff said bad feelings caused by the redistricting debate will not heal easily. "If I thought that it was all going to blow over when it's over, I wouldn't be nearly as distraught about what's going on. I don't think it's going to blow over. I think it may be a generation before the scars from this are healed and that's what bothers me about it."

Ratcliffe reported from Austin, Graves from Albuquerque.

---

[vannrox]

About time.

[CMailBag]

Why can the chicken Ds not be replaced for abandoning their positions? I would think that "Robert's Rules of Order" would state that after a member intentionally "misses" a certain number of sessions, the seat could be determined to be abandoned.

[alloysteel]

Any voter, or any legislator, may choose not to cast a vote on any given resolution, at any time. This should not invalidate the tally for or against any proposition. What has happened is that the Democrat Senators in the Texas legislature have arrogated upon themselves the right to a veto, by abstaining from voting.

Is it necessary to have a quorum present for the vote on any bill? Prudence would dictate that failing to have a quorum of at least 50% of the full body puts in great danger any legislation enacted under these circumstances, but rump legislatures have sat in parliaments and expressed their will in the past.

The Civil War was, among many other things, a boycott of the US Congress by the states which would have otherwise been represented in the House and Senate of the time. Did their absence make the acts of legislation during that period any less valid? Some were overturned or repealed later, but many more have stood as the law of the land, even to this day.

Presumedly, the current Texas Senate may reconsider the rules it has adopted in the past, and alter their application to the matter at hand, defining both a quorum if not otherwise defined in the Texas state constitution, and the rules for declaring a bill passed.

The Texas Democrat state Senators may or may not want to be present for that.

[spokeshave]

I was hoping Frist was getting ready to use the nuclear option on the Senate rats .....sigh