January 31, 2007

Constitutional Order of Business Vote
is Key Indicator in Loyalty Litmus Test

Some Democrats Who Voted for Craddick after Pitts
Dropped Out Team with Caucus Leaders to Kill HR 4

By Mike Hailey
Capitol Inside Editor

The Texas House battle over whether to suspend the constitutional order of business may have more significance as a loyalty litmus test than it does as a procedural pace-setter after a skirmish that Democrats won - and lost - when they were badly divided on Tuesday.

With House leaders needing 120 votes, HR 4 failed when three Republicans were absent and nine Democrats who'd voted for Speaker Tom Craddick's re-election earlier this month after a challenge unraveled opposed the move to suspend the constitutional provision. A total of 32 House Democrats and one Republican blocked the move to give legislation a green light without the need for emergency declaration. Thirty-three Democrats sided with the GOP leadership and voted to speed up the process.

Beyond the potential consequences of the Democrats' victory in the timeline battle, the vote helped both sides get a better grip on potential swing votes when the line between liberal and conservative is blurry and loyalty to leaders is more of an issue than the merits of bills themselves. When taken into consideration along with two key votes in the speaker's election on opening day, the 108-33 rejection of HR 4 will give the GOP leadership and Democratic Caucus leaders a better idea of who they can count on, who to forget and who to work on when votes aren't cast along purely partisan or ideological lines.

The loyalty litmus test so far revolves on the HR 4 vote as well as the 80-68 vote to table the amendment that would have kept votes in the speaker's race confidential until committees were assigned and the 121-27 vote that gave Craddick a third term in the top leadership post after State Rep. Jim Pitts had dropped his bid to unseat him.

The 80 House members - 65 Republicans and 15 Democrats - who stuck with Craddick on the key test vote in the speaker's election haven't voted against the leadership on any litmus test vote this year. State Rep. Mike O'Day, who won a special election for an open seat after the speaker's race had already been decided, punched a green light for HR 4 - the only litmus test loyalty vote that he's cast so far this session. That's 81 members who've been with the leadership 100 percent of the time on the litmus test votes they've cast since the session convened.

Twenty-five out of 27 Democrats who voted against Craddick for speaker after the only challenger had pulled out of the race haven't sided with the leadership on any of the three litmus test votes.

That leaves 44 House members - 29 Democrats and 15 Republicans - who've gone both ways on the three votes in questions. Only one House Republican - State Rep. Robert Talton of Pasadena - has been at odds with the leadership on two out of three loyalty litmus test votes. Talton sided with Pitts on the key test vote in the speaker's election before voting for Craddick after the challenge fizzled. Talton - long considered one of the House's most conservative members - was the only Republican no vote on HR 4.

Fourteen other Republicans sided with Democrats on the key test vote in the speaker's election before casting votes for Craddick after Pitts pulled the plug on his bid and voting with the leadership again on the move to suspend the constitutional order of business.

Eighteen Democrats who sided with Pitts on the key test vote in the speaker's race were ayes on Craddick's re-election when he no longer was challenged and sided with the leadership again on HR 4. Eleven Democrats have voted with House leaders on only one out of the three loyalty litmus test votes - nine who joined forces with Democratic Caucus leaders to kill HR 4 after siding with Pitts initially in the speaker's election then voting for Craddick when he was the only candidate still in the race.

Two Democrats - State Reps. Juan Escobar of Kingsville and Juan Garcia of Corpus Christi - sided with Pitts at first then voted against Craddick when he was no longer challenged before siding with the leadership on the motion to suspend the constitutional order of business.

Swing votes have played critical roles since Republicans took control of the House four years ago. The GOP leadership won the necessary two-thirds support for a proposed constitutional amendment on medical malpractice liability in 2003 when more than a dozen Democrats broke ranks with their own caucus on a measure that Republicans supported unanimously.

But GOP leaders saw their school finance plan go up in flames in a special session two years later when more than a dozen Republicans sided with Democrats who all voted together for an alternative measure known as the Hochberg amendment. Once Democratic State Rep. Scott Hochberg won majority support for his substitute school funding plan, the special session was dead for all practical purposes.

Other major bills and amendments have passed and failed during the past four years when members from both parties crossed partisan lines on measures that a majority of Republicans supported and a majority of Democrats opposed and vice versa. The fate of those proposals often depended on who could swing the most votes from members who weren't lockstep loyalists.

In a session that's started out on a raucous note, the fight for the swing votes will be critical and intense.