Monday, May 09, 2005
My House, my rules
In the House, the last daily calendar with regular HBs and HJRs lands on desks tomorrow. Representatives must move these bills by Thursday (or, for bills on the supplemental calendar, by Friday). During this crunch, the ability to toss bills into play during a lunch recess would help Republicans execute their will. A spat last Tuesday shows they might have that option.
Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) had raised a point of order on a voter-identification bill many Democrats opposed. The daily calendar was botched; this bill was considered, on third reading, out of proper order. Speaker Tom Craddick (R-Midland) sustained Burnam's point. He said the House would recess to let a revised calendar "lay out," in lege parlance, for the required two hours.
"In the grand scheme of things, all it meant was we had to stop for a couple of hours," Denise Davis, the House parliamentarian, told the Observer.
Democrats like Rep. Pete Gallego (D-Alpine) seemed to see another meaning. Raising a parliamentary inquiry, Gallego pointed out that the supplemental calendar must sit for two hours before the House actually convenes. And the House had convened already.
"We're gonna convene at three and that's when the calendar will be eligible and that's what we've done in the past," Craddick replied.
This tense exchange followed:
Reps. Burnam and Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) also made parliamentary inquiries.
To veteran lege-watchers, Craddick's interpretation of "convene" seems far from the way the House usually operates. It might let bills pop onto the floor mid-day, with no further warning than a two-hour break. It might help the speaker secure what he wants in this waning time, and after all, it is his House.
Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) had raised a point of order on a voter-identification bill many Democrats opposed. The daily calendar was botched; this bill was considered, on third reading, out of proper order. Speaker Tom Craddick (R-Midland) sustained Burnam's point. He said the House would recess to let a revised calendar "lay out," in lege parlance, for the required two hours.
"In the grand scheme of things, all it meant was we had to stop for a couple of hours," Denise Davis, the House parliamentarian, told the Observer.
Democrats like Rep. Pete Gallego (D-Alpine) seemed to see another meaning. Raising a parliamentary inquiry, Gallego pointed out that the supplemental calendar must sit for two hours before the House actually convenes. And the House had convened already.
"We're gonna convene at three and that's when the calendar will be eligible and that's what we've done in the past," Craddick replied.
This tense exchange followed:
Gallego: So we're adjourning now and reconvening on a new legislative day?
Craddick: We're gonna recess, Mr. Gallego.
Gallego: Is there not a difference, Mr. Speaker, between a recess and a --
Craddick: The rule does not define what the word "convene" means.
Gallego: So, any time we recess or adjourn, that could be convening, Mr. Speaker?
Craddick: For purposes of this rule, convene means when we come back in, and that's gonna mean when we come back at three.
Reps. Burnam and Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) also made parliamentary inquiries.
To veteran lege-watchers, Craddick's interpretation of "convene" seems far from the way the House usually operates. It might let bills pop onto the floor mid-day, with no further warning than a two-hour break. It might help the speaker secure what he wants in this waning time, and after all, it is his House.