Compromise proposed in Speaker vote
A key Jim Pitts supporter in the House Speaker race is floating an idea that would allow for a public vote in the divisive race - but wouldn't let the winning speaker use that info against the members during the session.
The backlash on Dallas Rep. Will Hartnett's stand-up-and-name-your-leader idea of a roll call vote for the speaker race has been pretty strong - and has, reportedly, alienated some support from House Speaker Tom Craddick, who's fending off a challenge from Pitts.
Generally, Pitts supporters want a secret vote to avoid retaliation. Team Craddick is demanding that his supporters call for a public vote on Tuesday, in whatever form that could take.
Fort Worth GOP Rep. Charlie Geren, who is supporting Rep. Jim Pitts for House Speaker, is calling for a process that would make public who voted for whom - but couldn't be used against members in committee assignments.
He suggests that members write their votes on paper ballots, sign them, and then the Secretary of State Roger Williams tallies them and announces the winner.
Here's the twist: The names on the ballots wouldn't be released until after committee assignments are made.
"The vote process that I have presented today not only protects House members, it protects the integrity of open government," Geren said in a press release. "The process is the best of both worlds. It allows every member to vote his or her conscience for Speaker without the fear of retribution. It also maintains our commitment to open government by providing a mechanism for the ballots to be released to the public."
Presumably, those names could still be used for primary-election strategizing much later - which is where a lot of the intimidation and fear of retribution comes from. Committee assignments play an important, how-shall-we-say, "motivational tool" in such contests, but they aren't the be-all-end-all.
Which means that next year's primary election will be interesting no matter what.
Craddick lieutenant Warren Chisum, a GOP rep from Pampa, said last night that Team Craddick was willing to negotiate with the other side on how to vote.
Ultimately, the House members get to decide the process on Tuesday.
Through a public vote. Which is basically a speaker vote. Just sayin.
Comments
Makes sense they were poisoned. When large numbers of birds suddenly drop dead, the first thing I think of is the opening scene of Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring. This classic, written in the 1960s, I believe, discusses the dangers of pesticides. Indeed, because their bodies are so very small and delicate, birds would tend to be first affected by so-called "safe" levels of pesticides. BTW I find it interesting (and appropriate) that it is against the law to label any pesticide "safe" for human beings. With such a wide range in the human (and animal) population of ability (and lack thereof) to detoxify ("process and excrete") chemicals, it just does not make sense to say that any potentially toxic chemical which the body works to get rid of, is "safe" -- and we know pesticides are potentially toxic because they are designed to kill ("cide").
Posted by: Lily | January 8, 2007 2:24 PM