Dan Patrick, The Blocker Bill, And Conservative Constitutionalism
Dan Patrick: a 'prophet' or a 'bishop'? (Rick Casey, Houston Chronicle)
[Dan Patrick] taunts [Republican state legislators'] manhood by suggesting that they should "act like the majority that they are" by removing the traditional "blocker bill."
This is a device whereby the first bill filed in the Senate is a meaningless measure. But since it requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to take bills out of order, this tradition means that any legislation can be blocked by 11 of the 30 senators.The device was originally employed in 1879, and something like it has been used ever since. The reason: Conservative Texans don't trust government and want to make it hard to pass new legislation.
Thoughtful Republicans are very aware that Democrats may well one day return to power, especially with demographic trends now under way. Though frustrated at times, these members appreciate the value of requiring consensus.
Casey comes really close to getting it right with those bolded blockquotes.
To get it a little closer to being right, I think we could say that the Texas constitution itself has any number of provisions designed to frustrate government action, ranging from a relatively weak executive to the relatively short, biennial legislative sessions. The institutional design seems to reflect an attitude about limiting government action. In my view, the Blocker Bill is a legislative tradition that is perfectly consistent with a Texas constitutionalism designed to limit government action. You build some degree of consensus, or you don't move legislation!
While Patrick and the CLOUT crew are understandably agitated that they have been unable to lower the property tax appraisal cap in the few years the issue has been on their radar (because some Republicans have used the Blocker Bill for political cover), the fact is that Patrick and crew have driven awareness of the property tax appraisal cap issue, and they are making headway. 91.9% of GOP primary voters statewide approved a call for the cap to be lowered to 5%. In Harris County, 94.8% approved. The measure has deep support among Republicans. Majorities of 90-95% cannot be ignored by Republican officeholders forever in a Republican state (it only seems like it), or even officeholders of the other party.
Here's hoping that Patrick is unsuccessful in what will surely be an assault to get rid of the Blocker Bill tradition. The Blocker Bill is useful for the reasons proponents sometimes cite (it builds comity, it gives the minority party more of a say in government), but more importantly, the Blocker Bill is consistent with a conservative Texas constitutionalism -- even when it seems to be in the way of individual conservative reforms.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 03/11/06 15:19 | Texas | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
There are currently no trackbacks for this item.
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
The blocker bill IS a great tradition that promotes consensus and limits legislation. Too bad it was removed in order to redistrict in the special session. That is just the kind of crap legislation it was designed to stop.
Posted by el_longhorn @ 10:56 on 03/13/06
I don't see the blocker bill getting removed either. In fact, I see some return to civility in the upcoming special session, because these people know their political lives depend on something productive getting done, and removing the blocker bill would destroy that right away. Of course, I don't include Speaker Craddick in that return to civility; in fact, I expect him to lose his Speakership in the next regular session due to his continued intransigence, but that's a whole 'nother story.
I don't know about the appraisal cap. Ballot resolutions nearly always pass by overwhelming margins, because they're crafted for each party's respective primary. There was one on the Dem ballot to raise the minimum wage that passed with about 92% of the vote. I suspect the appraisal cap would have a lot of support from both sides, though, especially if it were paired with a proposal to make all businesses pay their share of the franchise tax, or if a broad-based business tax of some kind was passed.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 12:50 on 03/13/06
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.