House Members: Feeling Feisty or Just Waking Up?
OK. With the exception of an hour break, the House has spent four and a half hours on the third reading calendar - which is for bills that have already passed the House and just need the rubber stamp.
This chamber rarely stalls out on third readings, but so far there have been four bills that reps have either questioned from the back mic and spoken against. One of them went down in flames. One of them was amended (which requires 100 votes), and kind of gutted.
That's what third readings are for, but this is the kind of action you expect to see on second reading - the real vote, usually. They must have been preoccupied yesterday .... with .. uhm, something other than the Calendar, I guess.
Today they're on fire. Any other time, some would guess that they're putting off the TXU bill. But these are actually issues that some of these guys care about, so I really think they just sat up and went, "Wha?!?!?"
Interesting aside: If they start debating and voting and trying to kill bills on third reading as vigorously as they do on second, then that House rule requiring record votes on third reading might actually start meaning something.
Comments
On HB 855 they were just waking up. Opponents were only seven votes away from killing it on second reading, so making another run at that one was predictable. Plus it was a REALLY bad bill.
Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | April 12, 2007 3:01 PM
Technically that bill passed on a voice vote. I assume you're referring to Thompson's amendment on Tuesday that inserted the criminal suspicion language? That 77-63 vote?
I'd say that was *kind* of a test vote, but I would also argue that some who voted for that language weren't solid "no" votes on the legislation itself - particularly after the amendment went on (two South Texas Dems told me that this morning).
Kind of like parental notification - people voted for the family bypass, which many interpreted as pro-choice votes and a test vote - but still voted for the bill even when the amendment had failed.
So on Delisi's bill, 77-63 isn't necessarily the split on the final vote. It's an indicator, but I had to guess, I'd say the final vote probably would have been closer to 80+.
At first I didn't think they'd be able to kill it. Pretty surprising after four years of lockstep voting.
Posted by: Brooks | April 12, 2007 3:39 PM
That was definitely the vote I was referencing, and for those working the bill that's where votecounting had to start. I knew there was a chance on 3rd reading when I saw the list of Aye votes among the 77 - several, like Bohac, were folks who shouldn't have been there, and I even suggested on Grits that enough might flip to kill it. Actually, I'm fairly shocked Kolkhorst was among the Ayes, even today. In any event, this was a fine moment for the House, I thought.
Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | April 12, 2007 5:17 PM