http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/955797/posts Dewhurst: I'm honoring tradition and precedent
IN a recent editorial, the Chronicle urged me to adhere to Texas Senate tradition as the Legislature addresses congressional redistricting during a special session. Of course, I will do that -- but the result may not be what the Editorial Board has in mind.
One Senate tradition is showing up for work just like every hard-working Texan does every day. Contrary to what our Senate Democrats say, there is no right in the Texas Constitution for legislators to break a quorum. In fact, the constitution provides each legislative house with the ability to compel attendance of absent members to achieve a quorum.
Another Senate tradition is completing the work at hand. Eleven of our Senate Democrats left town on July 28 before we completed the special session. That left stranded $120 million in badly needed new highway funding, $800 million that needs to be reclassified to avoid harming school districts, and $676 million that must be appropriated into general revenue. This money should be spent on public education, increasing Medicaid and CHIP medical provider reimbursement rates, and help for children, the frail and elderly.
When Senate Democrats fled the state, they tried to claim that Senate tradition always requires a two-thirds vote on any matter. That's partisan spin. Tradition and precedent actually dictate that the two-thirds vote should not govern in redistricting, particularly in special sessions.
In 1971, 1981 and 1992 special sessions on redistricting, Lt. Govs. Ben Barnes, Bill Hobby and Bob Bullock did not require a two-thirds vote on redistricting. In fact, the two-thirds vote was not used in at least 20 special legislative sessions in the last half-century alone.
The situation facing a 1992 redistricting special session was almost identical to that faced by the Legislature this summer. A three-judge federal court in late 1991 had drawn a state legislative map that most Senate Democrats found objectionable. The court map, one publication said, dramatically shifts the balance of power in the Senate, creating at least the opportunity for a Republican majority.
At a special session called by Gov. Ann Richards starting Jan. 2, 1992, Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, a Democrat, publicly announced that he did not have 21 votes, or a two-thirds margin, to change the court map. So he purposefully abandoned the two-thirds tradition, establishing what we now know as the Bullock Precedent.
There were only nine Republicans in the 31-member Senate at the time, but three Democrats also preferred the court-drawn map. But none of the 12 senators refused to participate in the process. They didn't run away to New Mexico or Oklahoma. Instead, they stayed and fought for what they believed in. In the end, the majority approved its Senate map by an 18 to 12 vote, well short of the two-thirds usually required.
Interestingly enough, with Democrats in the majority, there were no editorials written in 1992 demanding that the two-thirds vote be maintained.
Congressional districts in Texas today are essentially those drawn by a partisan Legislature in 1991. At that time, a national publication called the Texas map the most outrageously gerrymandered redistricting effort in the nation, resulting in Democratic strength in our congressional delegation well beyond its representation among voters.
Our congressional lines are even more outdated today. When the Legislature failed to draw new lines to accommodate Texas' two new congressional seats in 2001, the job fell to a federal court. The judges made the fewest changes possible to the existing 1991 map, in essence protecting incumbents.
Democrats, now in a minority, understandably want to cling to that 1991 map for as long as possible. But the plan's integrity, always dubious, is now in tatters. It's even more unrepresentative today, thanks to population changes, voting trends and distortions caused by incumbency, including taxpayer-paid staff, free mailing privileges, fund-raising advantages and media coverage.
The result is unfair representation. For example, a strong majority of Texas citizens support President Bush and his policies, while the majority of the state's congressional delegation does not.
State legislators, elected representatives of the people, have a constitutional duty to draw legislative seats. Even the president pro tem of the New Mexico Senate -- a Democrat and one of our senator's Albuquerque hosts -- declared earlier this year that redistricting should be done by legislators, not by the courts.
The two-thirds vote is a useful management tool employed by lieutenant governors to encourage consensus, bipartisanship and civility in the Texas Senate during debate on policy legislation that affects Texas citizens. I value that tradition and will do everything in my power to retain it.
But as Lt. Govs. Bullock, Barnes and Hobby and others have recognized, that tradition must be set aside on redistricting, particularly in special session. I will honor the precedents created by virtually all lieutenant governors -- my predecessors -- over recent decades. At the end of the day, in a democracy, the majority decides.
What's the chance the Dem's could get a Fed judge, even in S. TX, to prevent suspension of the 2/3rd's rule(use of a blocker bill)? If the Dems were successful in that, what's the likelihood that the GOP could convince the appeals court to grant an expedited hearing and decision?
Maybe if they call enough special sessions, the runaway democrats will lose their texas residency by being out of Texas all the time and all their seats will become vacant.