Laney and Price vs. Craddick

Speaker Tom Craddick made his claim to seemingly unlimited power in the last Lege session. But now two ex-speakers have weighed in on the debate, and against Craddick.

First, ex-speaker Rayford Price (62nd legislature, 2nd-4th called sessions, 1972-1973) submitted his take on the issue to the Attorney General. Greg Abbott has been dragged into the House fight by Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, and has been looking for expert opinions, like that of Price, on what the regulations say. Price argued that Craddick and his parliamentarian/consigliere Terry Keel were wrong to say that the speaker couldn't be removed by the House, because they were arguing that he was a state officer and therefore could only be removed by Senate-approved impeachment. He wasn't just talking from his gut: Price said that, since the speaker isn't listed as an officer on the state constitution, it's House business and House business only. He also disagreed with the concept of mandated two-year appointments for the speaker.

Then on Sunday, in an interview with the Paris News, Pete Laney (73rd-77th legislatures, 1993-2002) says he never thought that the House couldn't replace him if they felt like it. He attacked the power grab as un-American, and against the spirit and letter of House rules.

So either two ex-speakers, including Laney, who is regarded by many as the fairest and most competent speaker in Texas history, are wrong, or Craddick is.