Former lawmakers oppose rule change
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were having breakfast together, the story goes, when Jefferson called Washington to account for agreeing to the creation of a second — and unnecessary, Jefferson thought — legislative chamber.
“Why,” responded Washington, “did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking?”
“To cool it,” answered Jefferson. “My throat is not made of brass.”
“Even so, we pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it,” said Washington, making his point.
The purpose of the 31-member Texas Senate is similar to that of the U.S. Senate: to cool down some of the fevered legislation filed in the Senate or passed by a simple majority of the Texas House of Representatives.
This is accomplished by a Senate rule that requires a super-majority vote (60% of senators on the floor at this time) to bring up a bill for debate. This rule was enacted in 2015; for 70 years previously, a larger, two-thirds vote was required (21 votes of those present).
It’s no coincidence that the 2015 rule change mirrored the Senate’s partisan balance. It allowed Republicans, who held 20 seats, to bring up and pass a bill without any Democrat support. Now — with the possibility that Democrats may gain Senate seats in the general election — the idea has been raised to further lower the threshold during the 2021 legislative session to require only a simple majority vote.
As former Republican senators — with a total of 80 years of service in this wonderful, deliberative body — we oppose this possible change. Requiring only a simple majority would be bad for the Texas Senate, the Texas Legislature, and the State of Texas.
Those outside the Capitol arena may believe a debate over Senate procedural rules to be in-the-weeds or irrelevant. We believe this rule strongly influences what legislation will impact the lives of all Texans.
A stronger rule encourages, even forces, senators to work with colleagues across the political aisle. In our experience, working in a bipartisan manner led to better legislation and made the Texas Senate a more collegial body.
It also ensures legislators from rural and urban areas work together. In our heavily urban state, rural areas could be more easily outvoted under a rule change. In fact, some senators believe this issue is more about the urban/rural split than a partisan one.
Democrat and Republican Lt. Govs. Bill Hobby, Bob Bullock, Rick Perry, Bill Ratliff and David Dewhurst had successful terms under the two-thirds rule. It could be argued that this rule made them better leaders and improved the landmark legislation they passed (school finance, criminal justice reform, tort reform, tax cuts, worker comp reform, etc.).
Most true conservatives should support making the passage of legislation a little more difficult. We’ve all seen more bills we wanted to kill than pass. The two-thirds rule helped root out legislation that was highly controversial and didn’t enjoy wide-spread support. This allowed the Senate to stay focused and not get distracted by highly partisan or bitter issues that damage relationships and the integrity of the Senate.
We believe most Texans prefer legislative bodies that have more civil discourse than we see in Washington, D.C. The two-thirds rule was a key part of this.
Some of us served in the Texas Senate when there were six Republicans and 25 Democrats. We were on the other side of this rule. When Republicans became the majority, we declined to change the rules.
It made us better senators and it made our legislation better. We refused to do it because we knew the health and the future of the Senate was more important than any one person or the next election. Nothing has changed. We still oppose this change, regardless of which party is in control.
We urge Texas senators in 2021 to reject any attempt to change the rule so that only a simple majority vote is needed to bring bills to the floor for debate. What goes around comes around — one day, Democrats will be in control and use the rule to their advantage.
He who laughs today weeps tomorrow.