Dear Representative Howard:
I am writing you, as my State Representative, to share my opinions and observations in regard to the actions of some members of the House to remove Tom Craddick as Speaker and his response to those actions during the final days of the past session of the Legislature.
There has been much discussion in the press and by blogs on the internet about those actions. The first question being asked and discussed is: “Can a Speaker be removed as Speaker and, if so, how?” The second question is: “Can the Speaker refuse to recognize a member for a motion to remove him as Speaker?”
I and the other members of the House faced similar questions in 1972 prior to the Second Called Session of the Sixty-Second Legislature. The sitting Speaker at the time had been convicted of bribery prior to the beginning of the session. I was running for Speaker to replace him. The question we had was how do we remove the Speaker if he refuses to resign? We didn’t have to answer the question because he resigned and I was elected Speaker. What would have happened, if he had not resigned? We could not have had a convicted felon presiding over the House.
Speaker Craddick is not a convicted felon, in fact he is an honorable person who some members wanted removed as Speaker only because of the way he runs the House and his politics. Does that make a difference? The answer is no, Article 3, Section 11 of the Constitution provides that: “Each House may determine the rules of its own proceedings . . .”
The House under this constitutional authority may provide in its rules for the removal of the Speaker at any time, for any reason. The Speaker has limited powers under the Constitution and serves at the will of the House as may be provided by the House Rules.
Speaker Craddick, on May 26, 2007, placed in the House Journal a statement that the Speaker is a state officeholder under the Texas Constitution and can only be removed as Speaker by impeachment. This is an inaccurate statement of the law. He also states that the Speaker is the only constitutionally-mandated officer of the House. This is an accurate statement of the law. The Speaker is an officer of the House, not a state officeholder. State officeholders are elected by the people or are appointed by the Governor such as the Attorney General who is elected by the people and the Secretary of State who is appointed by the Governor. The Speaker is elected by the members of the House and serves subject to the Constitution and the House Rules.
The members who wanted to remove Speaker Craddick as Speaker had two issues that could not be overcome under the present House Rules. First issue: Do the House Rules provide for the removal of the Speaker? Second issue: Does the Speaker have to recognize a member for a motion to remove the Speaker?
There are no specific provisions in the House Rules for the removal of the Speaker. The members who wanted to remove Speaker Craddick were evidently relying on Rule 14, Section 1 of the House Rules which reads as follows: “If the rules are silent or inexplicit on any question of order or parliamentary practice, the Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, and its practice as reflected in published precedents, and Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure shall be considered as authority.” Evidently, there is, or there is thought to be, a procedure or precedent under this provision that authorizes the removal of the Speaker since the House Rules are silent on the question. However, this question was never officially decided by the Speaker or the House because of the second issue.
Speaker Craddick would not recognize a member for a motion to remove him as Speaker. He also refused to recognize a member to appeal the ruling of the chair on his ruling not to recognize. Under the House Rules he was authorized to make both rulings as he did. Rule 5, Chapter C, Section 24 states: “There shall be no appeal from the speaker’s recognition, but the speaker shall be governed by rules and usage in priority of entertaining motions from the floor.
When a member seeks recognition, the speaker may ask, “For what purpose does the member rise?” or “For what purpose does the member seek recognition?” and may then decide if recognition is to be granted.” Under the House Rules, the Speaker has complete and sole discretion on recognition with few exceptions not germane to this issue.
What happened during the past session of the Legislature is now history. What should be done for the future? The Speaker is the presiding officer of the House and given great powers over the actions of the House through the House Rules as adopted by the members. He should only serve at the will of a majority of the House. The House Rules do not directly address the removal and replacement of the Speaker, but should.
I don’t know if a majority of the members of the House would have voted to remove Speaker Craddick had he allowed a vote. I do know that the House Rules should provide a clear procedure for the removal of the Speaker by a majority vote of the members but not upon the motion of a few disgruntled members who must be recognized by the Speaker on a daily basis.
At the next session of the Legislature, you and the other members of the House should change the House Rules to provide that the Speaker may be removed at the will of the House upon a written motion made and signed by a majority of the members. This motion would take precedence over all other actions of the House and would be set for debate and action by the House at a time certain as provided in the motion and rule. The Speaker would be required to vacate the chair at the time the motion is considered and the House would be presided over by a temporary chair. If the motion prevails and the Speaker is removed, the House would immediately elect a new Speaker.
Some version of this proposed rule should be supported by all members of the House and especially by those members who are running for Speaker for the next session of the Legislature. I cannot imagine any Speaker wanting to remain Speaker without the support of at least a majority of the members.
Sincerely,
Rayford Price
