Whether one supports or opposes the actions of the Craddick D's last session, they chose to establish themselves as a separate group in the Texas Legislature. Calling themselves "Democrats for Reform," they laid out an agenda at the start of session. At the end of session, they claimed their agenda was a success, and that the key successes for Democrats this session were the result of the deals they had struck with Speaker Craddick. They also touted the personal victories they won for their district by supporting Craddick, and many were proud to call themselves "Craddick D's."
It should be noted, though, that only a handful of those who attended the first press conference (announcing the Democrats for Reform, at the start of session) attended the second (after the challenge to Craddick at the end of May). More over, the voracity to which "their agenda" can be called a success was called into question.
With the announcement that Chairman Robert Puente will retire, I thought it would be appropriate to see exactly how those "Democrats for Reform" are doing today. This is merely meant as an update -- trying to keep track of our Democrats in the Texas House. I select them out as a group not out of hostility, but because they chose to set themselves apart from the House Democratic Caucus.
Update: To clarify, I designated whether or not any of the following State Representatives would "still vote for Craddick" based on their last known public position -- which I sourced as best as possible in the middle column. Any additional news that any of the Members or anyone else wish to share, please send me an e-mail or post a comment, and I will update the chart appropriately.
The Craddick D's: Where We Are Today - October 22, 2007
Voted "present, not voting" during Rep. Haggerty's roll call speech; Rep. Chavez was quoted in the Houston Chronicle saying she would support new leadership in 2009.
No
Deshotel, Joe
Voted "against" Craddick during Rep. Haggerty's roll call speech.
No
Dukes, Dawnna
Though there were rumors that some in Austin were looking for a primary challenger, none have surfaced. The last known public statement was that Rep. Dukes stands by Craddick - though I'm not certain she'd vote for Craddick again.
Was one of the handful of Democrats proudly trumpeting the "Democrats for Reform" agenda at the end of session. No other public indication of her stance, and no primary news to date.
Yes
Guillen, Ryan
No challenger, no news. Though if the budget committee is still this hard, would he want it?
On the motion to vacate at end of session, was said to be "flip-flopping." No news, though with Rep. Puente's retirement, she is the only Craddick-supporter in San Antonio.
Of the 15, there are definitely 5 fewer supporters for Craddick, two "maybes" (three, if you include Rep. Turner), three Craddick D's facing primary challenges, and maybe a few more who would no longer call themselves Craddick D's.
Robert Puente's decision to not seek re-election came as a shock to most people. A pleasant one to some, an unpleasant one to others. The drumbeat in San Antonio to field a qualified, well-respected, progressive, anti-Craddick candidate against him had grown louder and louder since the Legislature adjourned.
The anti-Craddick D forces believed they had found their man in San Antonio City Councilman Roland Gutierrez. Gutierrez represents a city council district that takes in almost all of the Democratic primary vote-rich precincts of House District 119. Gutierrez, wildly popular in Puente's backyard, would have had a tremendous opportunity to knock off an 8-term, sitting Chairman.
Political observers were beginning to salivate over the potential of another, raucous battle- in the vein of Leibowitz-Mercer, Madla-Uresti and Faras-Antuna- in San Antonio's southern sector. The closer you are to the Republican infrastructure, the bigger your margin of defeat is in this part of the state.
Quorum Report breaks the news that Robert Puente (Craddick D- San Antonio) is retiring.
Sources are saying the official announcement will be this Saturday.
The likely Democratic nominee is city council member Roland Gutierrez. Gutierrez had been discussing challenging Puente in the primary in order to have better representation for the people in House District 119.
Some stories just slip through the cracks when there is an interesting U.S. Senate primary going on. Not sure if you noticed, but the primary map is getting interesting around the state.
Clay Robinson wrote a week ago that some “Craddick D’s” are more likely than others to garner primary opponents than others. His list included:
Among the so-called "Craddick Democrats" — Democratic House members viewed as loyal to Craddick, including a number of committee chairmen — those most likely to draw opponents in their party's primary include Kevin Bailey of Houston, Robert Puente of San Antonio, Aaron Peña of Edinburg and Kino Flores of Mission.
Two of those men have either a declared opponent or one looking at the possibilities--Aramando Walle and Roland Gutierrez has started making the moves to challenge Kevin Bailey and Robert Puente respectively.
Armando Walle, an aide to U.S. Rep. Gene Green of Houston, is preparing to challenge Bailey, and San Antonio Councilman Roland Gutierrez is considering a race against Puente.
Another race of interest is Rick Noriega’s seat. Since Noriega cannot run for both a state and federal office his House Seat will be opening up. House District 145 has a few candidates interested.
Elias De La Garza, owner of a busy Gulf Freeway fronted insurance office, is being wooed for the House District 145 race as an alternative to Houston Councilwoman Carol Alvarado and other potential contenders the local Democratic establishment might rally behind as a replacement for Noriega if Noriega gives up the seat.
There's also speculation Roy Morales, a retired Air Force Lt. Col. who ran twice for city council in the last two years, might run for the HD 145 race as a Republican in 2008.
All of these seats are known for being strong Democratic areas. While the newly created TexBlog PAC isn’t going to be involved in influencing the outcomes of these races, we will do our best to continue to cover them. If you have tips, news, or comments please feel free to write a journal or e-mail me at matt@burntorangereport.com.
Robert Puente (Craddick D- San Antonio) hasn’t been getting much good press in his hometown lately. The Express-News editorializes recent revelations of unethical practices between Puente, the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, and lobbyist Marc Rodriguez.
The relationship between Puente and Marc A. Rodriguez became clear when the two reportedly entered a real estate venture together in Hays County, south of Austin.
Legislation to create a special utility district to include the venture came before the House Natural Resources Committee, which Puente chairs.
The San Antonio Democrat recused himself from the vote, but the issue raised eyebrows.
Now, reports that Puente bought a house on the city's South Side a year ago and sold it to Rodriguez in October at a profit have muddied the waters even more.
As a lobbyist, Rodriguez frequently asks Puente to carry bills on behalf of his clients. In addition, Puente, a lawyer, provided legal services to Rodriguez in a family matter in 2005, receiving a fee of between $5,000 and $10,000.
Roland Gutierrez, San Antonio City Council member, has taken notice of Puente’s actions.
"I can't judge Robert and I'm not going to," he said. "But politics is black and white because it involves a public trust.
"When it's gray, it's often regarded as black in the eyes of the public," he said.
In yesterday’s Express-News article, Jamie Castillo highlights the Puente/Rodriguez housing deal.
n addition to carrying various pieces of legislation that impacted Rodriguez's clients, Puente is a participant with Rodriguez in a joint real estate venture in Hays County.
And, according to an article published in Sunday's Express-News, Puente bought a foreclosed-upon house last year and turned around and sold it to Rodriguez four months later.
Puente cleared at least $24,000 in the transaction, which he said he used as part of his $140,000 investment in the Hays County deal.
There is a reason for the dissent in the House. You simply can't trust Craddick. How long was El Paso promised a medical facility? How many times has Craddick or his lieutenants said one thing and done something else?
Now he is doing it with our water!
Senate Bill 3 was originally written with abusive use of eminent domain and unnecessary reservoir projects. During the marathon session on water issues, East Texas Rep. Stephen Frost had found a procedural error that could have taken the whole bill down, but rather than hurt Texas, he made a deal that he would keep the point of order to himself in exchange for a fair bill and a spot on the conference committee.
Neither happened.
The conference committee has come back stripping all of the local water issues, land owner protection, and put all of the reservoirs back into the bill.
As the Observer quotes Frost as saying,“I was lied to."
Still, Frost feels utterly betrayed. “If I had believed that the agreements we had made would not be honored I would have killed the bill [with the point of order],” said Frost.
Craddick told him in a meeting earlier today, with Puente present, that Puente had submitted Frost’s name but had also included “other options.” Whatever the details, Craddick clearly stuck a knife in Frost’s back, giving the upperhand to greedy Dallas water developers over East Texans struggling to preserve a way of life.
“I just don’t believe I was done right in this whole process,” Frost remarked. He said he will now find a way to bring SB 3 down altogether. “[T]he integrity of the body is at stake when this type of thing happens.”
The worst part is that conference committee's action were decided by a 3-2 vote. Frost's presence on the committee would have been a valuable addition not just for East Texas, but all of Texas.
Remember the Craddick 15. The 15 Democrats who helped Tom Craddick retain his seat as Speaker of the House. As a result, here are the assignments Papa Bear Craddick gave to his children:
Sylvester Turner: Speaker Pro Tempore; CBO of Regulated Industries; Calendars; Appropriations
Kevin Bailey: CHAIR of Urban Affairs; Business & Industry; General Investigating & Ethics
Norma Chavez: VICE CHAIR of Calendars; Appropriations; CBO of Financial Institutions
Joe Deshotel: CHAIR of Economic Development; Redistricting; Transportation
Dawnna Dukes: CBO of Culture, Rec & Tourism; Appropriations; Calendars
Kino Flores: CHAIR of Licensing & Administrative Procedures; Redistricting; Ways & Means
Helen Giddings: CHAIR of Business & Industry; VICE CHAIR of House Administration; Higher Education
Ryan Guillen: VICE CHAIR of Appropriations; Calendars; Natural Resources
Harold Dutton: CHAIR of Juvenile Justice & Family Issues; General Investigating & Ethics; Public Education
Tracy King: CHAIR of Border & International Affairs; Environmental Regulation
Eddie Lucio: CBO of Environmental Regulation; Appropriations; Local & Consent Calendars
Ruth Jones McClendon: CHAIR of Rules & Regulations; CBO of Pensions & Investments; Appropriations
Aaron Pena: CHAIR of Criminal Jurisprudence; Ways & Means
Robert Puente: CHAIR of Natural Resources; Local Government Ways & Means
Patrick Rose: CHAIR of Human Services; Higher Education
I want every Democratic activist to remember this list during the entire 80th Legislative Session - the 15 Democrats who enabled Tom Craddick to retain his undeserved Speakership:
Kevin Bailey
Norma Chavez
Joe Deshotel
Dawnna Dukes
Kino Flores
Helen Giddings
Ryan Guillen
Harold Dutton
Tracy King
Eddie Lucio III
Ruth Jones McClendon
Aaron Pena
Robert Puente
Patrick Rose
Sylvester Turner
Before I get into the heart of my argument, I want to give credit where credit is due. Democratic Leaders in the House, like Representatives Thompson and Dunnam and Gallego and Coleman, did yeoman work in holding 54 of 69 Democratic votes. Two sessions ago, Democrats couldn't get 50 votes for anything (just ask the trials). Two months ago, no one would have believed that Tom Craddick would have to endure am unprecedented 6-hour spectacle on the first day of session to retain his gavel. Now we're within striking distance of taking down the Speaker.
We witnessed real acts of courage from good democrats; Ritter and Eiland risking their chairmanships to do what was right, Hopson taking a principled stand at a critical moment, Martinez returning to the Democratic fold, and Raymond challenging the Speaker directly.
Despite the great work of these great Democrats, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the 15 Craddick Democrats provided Craddick with the margin he needed to get re-elected Speaker. These 15 Craddick enablers put their own best political interest ahead of their party and their constituents. Had just 7 of these 15 Democrats voted their conscience, voted their convictions, or voted their constituents - instead of merely voting their own selfish best interest - we would have kicked Craddick's ass off his $1000 throne.
We should thank each and every one of the 54 Democrats who had the courage to try and make Texas a better place. But let us never forget the Craddick 15.
Races for Speaker of the Texas House ostensibly are a "members only" affair. Ask a legislator what's happening and you'll get stiff-armed immediately. You'll get a polite brush off that "It's an internal deal."
However, it's the most important vote that a member ever casts and sets in motion how everything else is going to play out throughout the session and beyond.
And while a Member might claim this is a discussion among 150 legislators, the weapon that's used by the candidates or their team members has everything to do with insinuations about what lobbyists and special interests will be there for them in the next election and whether you'll get a primary opponent in the next cycle. We're already hearing the Craddick folks and the media talking about which Republican members will draw Leninger/Perry/Lobby fueled opponents if they vote for McCall but Craddick actually pulls it out.
But for the readers of this blog, the real red meat of the Speaker's race politics is what happens to the Democrats who don't stick with the Democratic Caucus on this one.
Thankfully, the Craddick Demo number is fast dwindling, but there seems to be some who'll stick with Craddick to the end.
Most are minority members who are in safe November General election districts. If they are going to be beat, it would have to be in a primary. The few Anglo Craddick supporters are in Republican leaning districts who think they're popular enough to win a primary challenge and will, by default, get solid Democratic support in the fall against a Republican. (Chuck Hopson and Patrick Rose). The other two Anglo Demos on the list are in "minority majority" or high minority impact districts and are even on more precarious ground (Tracy King and Kevin Bailey).
Perhaps the one with the most to lose career-wise is Patrick Rose. Although he's in a Republican leaning district and has to be moderate in his votes in the District, you can smell his ambition for statewide office in the future. To abandon the Democrats on this vote will probably be a fatal blow to his making it through a Democratic Primary for statewide office in the future. Primaries are notoriously progressive and this kind of back stab of the Party will be remembered.
One source tells BOR that Democratic leaders and activists have already began the discussions for opponents to Robert Puente and Ruth Jones McClendon in San Antonio, Sylvester Turner and Kevin Bailey in Houston, and Norma Chavez in El Paso.
Travis County politicos are burning up the holiday Party political gossip mill. They're all talking about perhaps the most endangered of the Craddick D's: Dawnna Dukes of HD 46 in Austin. What she gets for toading for Craddick hasn't been figured out. It's got most Travis County Democrats scratching their heads. Besides, Dukes has gained a reputation in recent years of being AWOL from representing her district. Representing a Travis County district is almost a full time job, and Dukes is rarely seen or heard from in political circles. Activists expect the Dems in Travis County's delegation to be not only at the Capitol, but at every neighborhood cookout and PTA meeting, and especially at Democratic events. Dukes hasn't been seen in a while. (And don't even bring up the anger from her French vacation that left the Democrats one vote short on a critical public education vote during the special session!)
HD 46 is what has been thought of as the traditional "African American" district in Austin. However this isn't like the other minority districts in Texas. African Americans aren't even a majority in the district. In fact the district is only voting age population of 26.1% African American, 32.6 % Anglo, and 37.9% Hispanic. The winner in a primary race here depends on progressive/liberal voters more so than the usual ethnic alliances.
Moreover, Dukes hasn't had a serious challenger in several cycles. Her worst enemy in pure political terms is the swing in voter turnout in the district. In 2006, the primary vote was only 2311 in the rep race. In 2004, turnout was 9662. The difference? A presidential primary. (District 46 contains a whole lot of young folks, UT students, and typical Austin slackers who turn out only for the presidential type races.) And you can bet that in 2008 with a heated prez race, the turnout in the campus and liberal precincts will soar. And that's the problem for Dukes. None of those "new" voters will have heard of her, and what they'll hear from a challenger will be that she's a Republican sell-out. These energized voters will vote against anything or anyone remotely "establishment" at the Lege.
And lastly, Dukes has no organization in Austin. Like most incumbents in safe liberal districts, she's not built any campaign apparatus. She has relied on the liberal political consultants that can influence the outcome of these races before filing day ink is dry. Rumors on the street are that those movers and shakers are doing the most talking about finding the opponent for her if she flubs this one. And even if they don't get out front for an opponent, none will want to take on the job of trying to sell that product. Dukes will be on her own.
And on top of it all for Dukes, a PAC has already been filed called "Too Close To Craddick PAC" whose purpose is to support challengers to Democrats who side with the Speaker. It's Austin based, and you can bet those behind it are looking locally before going statewide.
So watch the fallout. For the first time in history, the votes in a Speaker's race may be cast by members only, but those Democrats who piss on their constituents might have a rude and rank awakening in 2008.
(I hope that this is a sign to Democrats to take the iniative to change our Party for the better, than to hope that it will sort itself out over time. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
During the run up to the primary it was long speculated that Carlos Uresti would not be the only one challenging Frank Madla in Senate District 19. Now Uresti is being called the Democrat to watch in Texas and Pete Gallego and Robert Puente are second guessing their decision not to run.
Jaime Castillo’s editorial discusses the political hangovers both State Representatives are experiencing. While Uresti took the hard road and ran against Madla, Gallego and Puente hoped to be crowned the successor in four years.
Puente, like Gallego, believed Madla would be serving his final term in office had he emerged victorious this election cycle. According to Puente's plan, the seat would be open in four years and he would have just as good a chance as anyone to win it.
While Puente and Gallego deferred to Madla, Uresti took the gutsy route and it paid off. He still has to get through the November general election, but most, including Puente and Gallego, believe the seat is Uresti's for the foreseeable future unless he stumbles during a probable first term.
In the end, Gallego and Puente may have “lost” their chances for a promotion, but Texas won on Tuesday. The two representatives have served their districts well for many years, and the fact that they will continue to do so is great for the party. The Democratic Party has a deeper bench for later elections, and has the ability to net more D’s for the 2007 session because of their presence.
