Texas House Democrats ask for public hearings on election bills in preview of special session tactic

AUSTIN – Ahead of the special session of the Legislature, which begins Thursday, most House Democrats on Monday sent Speaker Dade Phelan a list of talking points, including calling for full transparency and public hearings on an electoral law that is bitterly controversial and Texas brought the national spotlight into play.

The Democratic letter also called for a pledge from Phelan, a Republican from Beaumont, not to bring any of the agenda through the House until funding for the legislature, which was rejected by Governor Greg Abbott, is restored.

The letter, written by San Antonio Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer and signed by 36 of the 67 Democrats in the Chamber, gives a first glimpse into the tactics of the special session.

It is not clear, however, that House Democrats are keen to deny ruling Republicans a quorum to the legislature’s ruling Republicans, as the Texas Constitution provides for the business of both chambers.

The final version of the regular session of a proposed recast of the electoral law by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate enforced it is anathema to Democrats who say it amounts to voter suppression, particularly targeting minorities.

However, with Abbott vetoing funding for more than 2,000 legislative staff after September 1, repeating the Democrats’ “quorum break” in the House of Representatives at the end of May would result in their staff not being paid. Some have discussed raising money across the country. However, it would be costly to top up enough to pay salaries and benefits – even for some of their employees – for two years.

Democratic leaders like Party Executive Chairman Chris Turner of Grand Prairie and letter writer Martinez Fischer did not respond to questions about whether the Democrats will not show up on Thursday if Phelan does not make the assurances requested.

Eight-year-old Austin Representative Donna Howard, who signed the letter, said late Monday, “I’m not being led to believe by anyone at this point that people are not going to show up.”

The letter, signed by Turner and at least four other Phelan’s committee chairs, rehearsed the tumultuous battle at the end of the session over the electoral law, Senate Law 7.

Democrats, even those on the conference committee negotiating a final version, claimed they were excluded from the final talks. A new language, which was not included in the bill of the two chambers, appeared. Talk of typographical errors that accidentally prevented black churches from holding early votes on Sunday mornings – called “souls to the polls” – made national news. Also a provision that makes it easier for judges to overturn an election. The House Democrats’ nightly quorum break, hours before a deadline for passing a bill, derailed the measure – at least temporarily.

The Democrats reminded Phelan that, while they didn’t like the House-approved version, they were working with his lieutenants to make it more palatable.

Much is at stake, they wrote.

“We interfere in the core of our democracy and in the most basic rights of our voters,” the letter reads. “We cannot deliberate on these issues in a process that is a clumsy mess at best and a fraudulent, bipartisan deception at worst.”

The House Democrats took their anger on Patrick and begged Phelan to defend their chamber.

“It is a time-honored tradition for the speaker to defend the position of the House of Representatives and not bow out of deference, especially when the policy in question has been cultivated by leaders on both sides of the aisle, as indicated by you and your leadership team,” the letter says. “It is important that you clearly state your intention to continue campaigning for the House of Representatives and not allow the lieutenant governor to set the tone and pace of the session as he did during the final days of the Regular Session.”

A Patrick spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

When asked about Phelan’s reaction, speaker’s spokesman, Enrique Marquez, wrote: “We look forward to seeing everyone on the 8th.”

Democrats demanded that electoral law substitutes be laid out for at least 24 hours prior to the vote; Votes are held in regularly scheduled meetings, not in a rush, “formal meetings” convened at short notice; public witness statements are taken virtually; and hearings are held on weekends whenever possible “to allow our constituents with full-time employment and family commitments to participate in the process.”

They also urged Phelan not to take revenge on members who exceeded the quorum at the end of May and urged House members to show “decency and respect” to colleagues, including on their social media. Recalling that this year the House of Representatives rejected three of Patrick’s priority bills – on transgender sports, preventing local sick leave ordinances, and banning taxpayer-paid lobbying – the Democrats urged the speaker to “take the position of the Chamber.” to defend on these issues over the next 30 days ”. . “

In the past, state troopers were sent to try to intercept quorum-breaking lawmakers.

The Democrats advocated Phelan pledge not to recognize a motion for a House call to proactively secure a quorum, which would presumably require law enforcement efforts to be effective. He should only do this, they wrote, “when the quorum is not present” – which means that the members have already left the chamber or would not have appeared.

“As the special session is due in a few days, we look forward to your quick response,” concluded the Democrats.

Howard and Austin Rep. Celia Israel, who chaired the House Democratic campaign committee last year, said they wouldn’t read too much if the letter was missing the signatures of 31 Democrats.

“Some people are out of town and may not watch their news,” Howard said.

Israel added, “Perhaps the holiday weekend slowed reactions?”

Martinez Fischer, a lawyer and veteran of the campaign and electoral disputes of the past two decades, is known for his passionate rhetoric.

It is possible that the tone of the letter was too confrontational for some. Missing were key allies of the Phelan Democrats such as Pro Tem spokesman Joe Moody from El Paso, Chairwoman of the Licensing & Administrative Procedures Committee, Senfronia Thompson from Houston, Vice-Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee Mary González von Clint and the Head of the Transportation Committee, Terry Canales from Edinburgh.

“The request here is legitimate and honors the traditions of the House and recognizes the work the House has already done,” said Howard, who said Abbott, Patrick and the House GOP leaders are the feuds, not the Democrats of the House.

In response to Abbott’s veto of the next $ 410.4 million biennial budget for the legislature and its support agencies, Democrats said Phelan must demand the money restored before House members do other business this summer.

All but one of the 67 Democrats in the House of Representatives joined a lawsuit filed late last month that challenged Abbott’s authority to wipe out funding for an equal, separate branch of state government. Other plaintiffs include the Texas AFL-CIO and Legislative Staff. The lawsuit is pending in the Texas Republican Supreme Court, where Abbott previously served.

On Monday, two former senior Republican leaders, former spokesman Joe Straus of San Antonio and former Lt. Gov. Mount Pleasant’s Bill Ratliff and former Democratic spokesman Pete Laney of the Hale Center invited a friend of the court letter in support of Democrats in the House of Representatives “that Abbott’s removal of” Article X “in the legislative budget is unconstitutional.

“The governor’s veto of Article X of SB 1 is an attempt to intimidate members of the legislature and circumvent democracy by vetoing funds that finance the operations of a separate branch of government,” wrote the three former leaders. “This action should be reprimanded by people of all political convictions. According to constitutional intent, the members of the legislature are not controlled by any governor – neither Republicans nor Democrats. “

In a reply from Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is defending Abbott, prosecutors said the governor could review lawmakers because “the lawmaker has given up government.” Plus, no damage has occurred yet so the suit is not yet ripe, Paxton said. He said lawmakers, whose annual salaries are set at $ 7,200 in the state’s constitution, are unaffected and have no legal standing.

[ad_1]