Milton Rister and the Ghosts of Tom Craddick

by: Matt Glazer

Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:15 PM CST

Craddick may be gone, but Rister still leads the Lege Council, which is now mired in a controversy over the erasure of computer files from Craddick staff computers in the last hours of Craddick's tenure as Speaker. Members have called on Rister to resign over the incident, which may have deleted documents of a historic nature, as well as documents detailing the level of coordination between Craddick's office and major Texas lobbyists.

But Rister may not need to resign if HB 1088, filed yesterday by Marc Veasey of Fort Worth, is passed into law. Under the bill proposed by Veasey, the leader of Lege Council would have to be a licensed attorney, something Rister is not. Veasey is a Democratic representative from Fort Worth, and in previous sessions has served as the Democratic caucuses' whip. He says his bill is designed to "restore trust" between legislators and the Lege Council.

This Rister controversy reminds us that though Tom Craddick may have been ousted, lingering damage from his speakership remains. We need to hold our legislators' feet to the fire to ensure that, by the end of the 81st Session, all the damage Craddick did to our state government has been addressed. Last week's rules revisions, and this week's bill by Veasey are solid steps in that direction.

Dan Branch's Empty Gesture

by: Matt Glazer

Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:12 AM CDT

Nobody opposes this first step.  The constitutional amendment passed 142 to 0.  The problem is, why only third reading?  Why stop here?

We are going to require the Secretary of State to spend millions of dollars to put an amendment into our growing state constitution (over 400 amendments and counting).  Instead of doing the minimum, our state must shine the spotlight at the heart of the debate.  As Mark Veasey pointed out, all the action is in the second reading. 

"Do we really want to ask the voters to approve something and then have an election process that's going to cost money, when most of the real debate is [over]?" said Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth.

It's true.  The third reading of a bill is hampered with restrictions and barriers to debate.  To amend a bill in third reading it takes a 2/3 majority, but in second reading it only takes a simple majority.  Where do you think the amendment process happens?  Just think back to the long night we call the budget debate.  Democrats and Republican offered over 100 amendments until early the next morning all in second reading. 

As Karen Brooks pointed out at the Dallas Morning News:

Legislation is typically debated and voted on for two consecutive days. If a bill passes the preliminary vote on the first day, it's almost certain to survive final passage.

Bills rarely die on final passage, though it's not unprecedented. Last week, a bill that would have required anyone to give a police officer their name and address on demand - even those who weren't being arrested - passed easily on a voice vote on the first day of debate.

I need to give a nod to the Morning News because of their hard work on this issue.  The Dallas Morning News has been in the thick of this debate since 2003-- listening to Texans, law makers, and testifying.

Texans deserve to see the process and witness the debate.  They deserve time to see how their representative voted and why and encourage them to change their mind before third reading.

If we are going to take the time to educate voters on an issue, put HJR 19 on a ballot, and mobilize voters, let's go the distance.  Information is key to healthy democracy, and we need to outshine Dan Branch's empty gesture.