The argument about whether the speaker of the House can or can’t basically ignore who they want could be steaming back to a legislature near you.
At the end of the last session, the smart money was that Speaker Tom Craddick would be laying low, praying for no special session. But, as noted earlier today, that may not be his choice any more. There may be a special session before Attorney General Greg Abbott can render his opinion, so it could just come down to a floor vote for a new speaker – at which point, party loyalties could mean nothing.
On one side, Craddick and his supporters. First and foremost of these is Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, chair of the House appropriations committee and one of the speaker’s most powerful allies (in part because his budget-building committee can help deliver on financial promises that could crudely be called pork). In his own letter to Abbott (so much his own work that Craddick sent it out as part of his own press release) Chisum deployed an aw-shucks coyness, saying he’s a rancher and not an attorney, but still and all, they should just let the speaker do what he wants.
On the other side are Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, and complaint co-signatoree Byron Cook, R-Corsicana. It’s probably a safe bet to include almost all of the six other challengers to Craddick’s post, although they shouldn’t count on Craddick-D-in-chief Sylvester Turner, D-Houston. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, has made it a point of principal to block Craddick at every turn. Then there’s a whole bunch of Republicans, like El Paso’s Pat Haggerty and Richardson’s Fred Hill, who made no-turning-back style stands against the speaker before sine die.
So here’s the real question: If there is a special session, who can muster more forces and more votes?
This article appears in July 20 • 2007.
