What do you get when you cross a freshman Democrat with a swing-voting constituency and a GOP-controlled House? You get Rep. Patrick Rose, a lot of angry people from both parties, and votes that are all over the map. Here’s a sampling of the Rose record on bills passed during the regular session and whom he ticked off in the process:
HB 4 and HJR 3, tort reform: YES
Rose riled Democrats, trial lawyers, progressives — all of whom had worked to get him elected. On the other hand, Rose successfully carried an amendment to HJR 3 that in theory mandates lower insurance premiums for doctors and health care providers; big insurance didn’t like it.
SB 14, insurance reform: YES
Rose says this attempt to reign in the insurance industry is one of the reasons the industry is more than willing to help out with trying to thwart his re-election.
HB 15, 24-hour abortion wait: NO
Rose did good by most Dems and choice advocates with his vote against requiring providers to distribute anti-abortion literature for women to read during a 24-hour waiting period before performing the procedure. Conservatives added this vote to the list of reasons to replace Rose.
SB 7, Defense of Marriage Act: YES
Yes, but not for the reasons that Glen Maxey, the openly gay former state representative, occasionally endorsed yes votes on gay-bashing bills like this one (to deny Republicans a record vote for campaign purposes). The DOMA prohibits the legal recognition of gay civil unions. Rose comments simply: “I join the folks in Blanco, Caldwell, and Hays counties in supporting the provisions of DOMA.”
HB 456, anti-lobbying: YES (consolidated with omnibus ethics-reform bill, HB 1606)
Rose drafted this legislation aimed at forbidding legislators to represent paid clients before state agencies. Rose’s predecessor, Rick Green, and San Antonio Sen. Jeff Wentworth (who co-authored Rose’s bill) are accused of having done what the law now more explicitly prohibits.
HB 1, state budget: YES
Among myriad other delights, the new Republican budget slashes health care funding for kids and elderly and dumps the burden on local governments.
This article appears in July 18 • 2003.
