Nine o’clock on a Friday night. What a great time for Attorney General Greg Abbott to finally release his opinion on whether House Speaker Tom Craddick overstepped his powers during the last legislative session. In a step that surprised few, Abbott said there really was no constitutional background to go on, depended on court precedent to answer two of the questions posed originally by Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, back in June, and completely ducked out on the other two, claiming violation of separation of powers.
The basic gist: as speaker, Craddick is a constitutional officer of the state, and can only be removed by standing House rules or impeachment, which would require Senate approval. Keffer and Rep. Byron Cook, R-Corsicana, called this last bit “unprecedented.” Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco, said he wasn’t surprised that Abbott made this call, which basically backed Craddick’s stance 100%. Follow the money, he said, and argued that “financial ties between Abbott and Craddick raise serious doubts about the fairness and independence of the opinion process. They are wed at the hip by the same donors, and the public record makes that clear.”
Craddick, of course, was quite content and said in a short and pithy news release that he “welcomes the attorney general’s opinion.” Then he went back on Sunday to put out another press release, interpreting the opinion at length, and saying it was a 100% pat-on-the-back from Abbott.
This article appears in December 14 • 2007.
