| As a twelve year former member of the House of Representatives, and one of those members who reveled in the arcane discussions of the Rules of the House and when and how to use them, I joined many other onlookers last night for the adrenalin rush of the actions of what is commonly now called “The Insurgency”.
After adjournment, as I drifted from one group to another of staffers, lobbyists, former members and those who gathered to watch the drama, the question was “What happens now?”
Clearly, Mr. Craddick, seemed to have the upper hand. He’s installed Mr. Keel and Mr. Wilson as the new Parliamentarians (either by a necessity resulting from Mrs. Davis’ choice of resignation or by design, resulting from the forced removal by resignation of Mrs. Davis).
Mr. Craddick has chosen to ignore the 1871 precedence of the recognition of a member to move to vacate the chair held by the last Republican Speaker to occupy this position.
Mr. Craddick has chosen to ignore a precedent from 100 years later in 1971 as a member of the insurgency known as the Dirty Thirty, where he, himself, joined 10 members to appeal the ruling of the Chair about whether or not a motion was Privileged.
All Members who first see it up close, realize quickly that the Parliamentarian has a unique and important position. A House Parliamentarian literally states every matter that a Speaker utters concerning the process, and the Speaker parrots their instructions. That was not unusual last night. What was jarringly unsettling was to hear Mr. Keel, imposed on the House by a single member (as opposed to being hired through an adoption of a Resolution voted on by the body), direct the action in such a loud voice that the Speaker’s utterances seemed to be an afterthought. To those on the outside, it was stunning.
The Speaker has, through ignoring precedent and a torturous interpretation of the Constitution, told the House that he has ALL power and cannot be overruled. In effect, he’s said that he has sole discretion on whether to recognize a member for a motion, and additionally, the power not to recognize a member who want to appeal that decision. The resulting Catch 22 is that the Speaker has complete and sole power.
Mr. Craddick, Mr. Keel and Mr. Wilson, you might have tied the House in a pretty knot to end the insurgency. There’s still three days to see this plays out and if you wish to maintain that posture.
So, from observers, the questions are posed: What does Craddick do now? What do the Insurgents do now?
I ask a different question: What do the Craddick Loyalists do now?
The most amazing thing about my experience in the Texas House was the realization I had (I don’t know when it became clear, but it just one day became a fact), that I wasn’t just a single liberal, gay, out of the mainstream member of the House. It became clear that I was a part of an institution. No matter what my position, or whether I was the single voice, if I wished to be a part of the discussion or action, I was going to be respected and valued enough to be allowed to do so.
It was always hard to explain to an outsider, or even a Capitol staffer or lobbyist, how I could be in a vehement fight with Warren Chisum or Arlene Wohlgemuth on some gay rights debate in one minute that questioned my very being as a human, and then stand at the next minute beside them and lay out a joint-authored bill together on some other subject.
You could do that because the tradition of the institution was so much more important than personalities or issue disagreements, or even raw politics.
So to the Craddick Loyalists and those in that group who are my former colleagues especially, since we have experienced that bond that only Members of this esteemed institution can truly understand, I ask you now the following:
If Mr. Craddick is legally correct under the Constitution and the Rules of the House, the question and the solution then shifts away from Mr. Craddick and even from the Insurgents.
Mr. Hill asked how many signatures on a letter of request from his colleagues, the 149 other members, would it take for Mr. Craddick to simply accede to the will of the majority and resign. Most observers would expect in such a scenario that we’d also find out whether the Insurgency “has the votes” through such a letter. Ostensibly, to have the appropriate effect, the Insurgency would produce a list showing a majority of support for Mr. Craddick to resign for the “good of the House.”
I don’t think it takes a majority. I think it simply takes you, those who for whatever reason have stood by the Speaker this long, to say that the institution is bigger than one member. And that it’s time for this to come to an end.
It’s time that you end this madness by leading the request to ask the Speaker to resign.
You know what the continuation of this single member’s occupancy of the Speaker’s chair will do to this House.
You know there is no longer an ability for this House to come together for the good of the people of Texas on policy and issue discussions.
You know how brutal both primary and partisan general elections will be for lots of your colleagues in 2008.
You know how awful this full-out, publicly debated Speaker’s race will be for the next 18 months.
It’s your responsibility to end it. Out of loyalty you might oppose vacating the Chair or overruling the Speaker’s decision. But out of honor to the institution, you must ask him to resign.
You don’t even have to do it as a public jesture. Just do it. |
