Two bills concerning bullying, HB24 and HB224, have been scheduled for public hearing on Tuesday, March 1 in the House Public Education Committee:
HB 24 by Rep. Ryan Guillen would allow schools to place students who engage in electronic harassment in alternative school if the communication was sent from school grounds or the communication was received on equipment that is school property. Current law does not recognize cyber-bullying and gives administrators no ability to address cyber-bullying that takes place off-campus (Legislative Queery's initial post on HB 24 is HERE)
HB 224 by Rep. Mark Strama requires all school districts to create a training program for staff, volunteers who work with students, students and parents designed to teach them to prevent, identify and respond to bullying and allows school administrators to transfer bullies to a different class or campus than their victims (under current law only the victim may be transferred). It creates a uniform definition of bullying in the education code, adding cyber-bullying and allows school administrators to address cyber-bullying that takes place off campus if the electronic communication is received on campus or at a school event or if it substantially disrupts school operations. The bill also includes a requirement that schools report statistics on bullying to the state. (Legislative Queery's initial post on HB 224 is HERE)
Chairman Rob Eissler scheduled both bills for the committee's regular hearing at 2:00 pm on Tuesday (or later if the House doesn't get out in time, which seems unlikely). Because of the similarities between the two bills it is likely that they will be discussed (or "laid out") at the same time. I do not expect the committee to eventually take a vote on both bills. Instead they will probably take any parts of Guillen's bill that they like better than Strama's and attach it to HB 224.
HB 224 was filed last session as HB 1323, which was also referred to the Public Education Committee and was eventually voted out (for Legislative Queery's somewhat exhaustive exploration of that bill's journey go HERE). HB 1323 was scheduled for public hearing on the 77th day of the 81st session, the fact that HB 224 is scheduled for public hearing on the 50th day gives me great hope. It shows that Chairman Eissler (who chaired the committee last session as well) is giving this issue more attention.
The committee will hear several bills during the hearing. The order the bills are taken in is completely at the chairman's discretion. Typically committee chairs will hear bills that have strong public interest first, so that people who have traveled to Austin to testify can get on their way, but there is no predicting the actual order.
Any member of the public may testify at a public hearing. All they have to do is go to the hearing room (E2.036), fill out a form and hand the form into one of the committee's staff, who will be sitting at the front of the room. People testifying before the committee are required to indicate which bills they are testifying about (so if someone wants to testify about both HB 24 and HB 224 they need to fill out two forms) and to say if they are testifying "For", "Against" or "On" the bill. (Generally people do not testify "On" the bill unless they are state employees who are their to provide factual or background information to the committee.) It is also possible to fill out the form as "present - not testifying" which creates a public record of the person's position without having to speak before the committee. Chairman Eissler has indicated that each person's testimony will be limited to three minutes.
Last session only two people testified against Strama's bill: a representative of the ACLU who believed that “shielding children from getting snubbed or being called names undermines children's ability to develop the coping mechanisms to be able to fend for themselves” and a representative from the radical right-wing "Freemarket Association" who did not testify. Conservative radio and "news" stations have begun to portray anti-bullying efforts as an insidious plot to push the "gay agenda" (whatever that means). I would not be surprised if there were more people testifying against the bill this session.
(By the way, the ACLU of Texas' phone number is (512) 478-7300 and their e-mail is info@aclutx.org -- I, for one, will be contacting them urging them not to testify in support of bullying as a vital educational experience this session.)
Seven of last session's committee members are back this time around: Eissler, Hochberg, Allen, Aycock, Dutton, Shelton and Webber. Eissler is about as conservative as they come, but his scheduling of the bill for hearing, plus his history of scheduling it in the past means that he could possibly vote in favor. Hochberg, Allen and Dutton have good histories of supporting the LGBT community and will likely support HB 224. Two sessions ago Aycock voted against an amendment by Rep. Garnet Coleman that would have required reporting very similar to HB 224's - I worry that that part of the bill will be a sticking point for him. Shelton and Webber are sophomore members of the House and don't have a strong voting record to base predictions on. Webber prides himself on his tech savvy and reliance on hard facts and statistics (he is known for fact-checking his fellow committee members during hearings using his laptop). He may be convinced to support HB 224 if given sufficient empirical data that the approach it proposes would achieve the desired effect (or if he is informed that in a 2010 Equality Texas poll 79.2% of Texas voters said that they support uniform anti-bullying legislation to prohibit harassment in schools, including the children of gay/lesbian parents or teens who are gay).
Four of the committee's members are new: Guillen, Huberty, Smith and Strama. It's a pretty safe bet that Strama and Guillen support their own bills. Huberty is a freshman, recently swept into office on the teabagger wave, it's pretty much impossible to predict his actions but I'm guessing he will look to the senior republican members of the committee (Eissler and Aycock) for direction. If Todd Smith votes for this bill I'll eat my hat. Expect him to offer helpful suggestions to parents who testify to the committee about encouraging their children not to stand out so much, and thus avoiding making themselves targets.
To pass out of committee anti-bullying legislation needs the support of the chairman and at least 6 "Yes" votes. I count: 5 definite Yes's, 1 maybe, 2 probably not's, 1 hell no, and 2 who the hell knows. Both of these bills have a very good chance of making it out of committee in some form, but the public will need to strongly express their support to the committee members to push anti-bullying legislation through committee and on to the House floor.
------------------------------
If you support anti-bullying legislation I encourage you to contact the members of the committee and ask for their support. The e-mail addresses and phone numbers for all the members and select staffers are below. There is also a copy-and-paste list of all the e-mail addresses at the bottom if you only have time to send one e-mail.
House Committee on Education Members
Rob Eissler, (Chair)
512-463-0797 Fax: 512-463-0898
rob.eissler@house.state.tx.us
Scott Hochberg, (Vice Chair)
512-463-0492 Fax: 512-463-5896
scott.hochberg@house.state.tx.us
Alma Allen
512-463-07445 Fax: 512-463-0761
alma.allen@house.state.tx.us
Jimmie Don Aycock
512-463-0684 Fax: 512-463-8987
jimmie.aycock@house.state.tx.us
Harold Dutton, Jr
512-463-0510 Fax: 512-463-8333
stephanie.russell@house.state.tx.us
Representative Ryan Guillen
512-463-0416 Fax: 512-463-1012
ryan.guillen@house.state.tx.us
Dan Huberty
512-463-0520 Fax: 512-463-1606
dan.huberty@house.state.tx.us
Mark Shelton
512-463-0608 Fax: 512-463-8342
mark.shelton@house.state.tx.us
Todd Smith
512-463-0522 Fax: 512-463-9529
todd.smith@house.state.tx.us
Mark Strama
512-463-0821 Fax: 512-463-1199
mark.strama@house.state.tx.us
Randy Weber
512-463-0707 Fax: 512-463-8717
randy.weber@house.state.tx.us
In addition each of the Representatives has a staffer whose primary responsibility is handling education issues:
Jenna Watts - Rob Eissler, (Chair)
jenna.watts_hc@house.state.tx.us
Becky Cohen - Scott Hochberg, (Vice Chair)
becky.cohen@house.state.tx.us
Brian Waldrup - Alma Allen
brian.waldrup@house.state.tx.us
Belinda Pustka - Jimmie Don Aycock
belinda.pustka@house.state.tx.us
Stephanie Russell - Harold Dutton, Jr.
stephanie.russell@house.state.tx.us
Cory Howell or Katy Johnson - Representative Ryan Guillen
cory.howell@house.state.tx.us
katy.johnson@house.state.tx.us
Maggie Irwin - Dan Huberty
maggie.irwin@house.state.tx.us
Sierra Stephens - Mark Shelton
sierra.stephens@house.state.tx.us
Trish Conradt - Todd Smith
patricia.conradt@house.state.tx.us
Mary Throop - Mark Strama
mary.throop@house.state.tx.us
Chara McMichael - Randy Weber
chara.mcmichael@house.state.tx.us
If you only have time to write one e-mail copy and paste the list below into the "to" field to reach all of the committee members and their education staffers.
rob.eissler@house.state.tx.us; scott.hochberg@house.state.tx.us; alma.allen@house.state.tx.us; jimmie.aycock@house.state.tx.us; stephanie.russell@house.state.tx.us; ryan.guillen@house.state.tx.us; dan.huberty@house.state.tx.us; mark.shelton@house.state.tx.us; todd.smith@house.state.tx.us; mark.strama@house.state.tx.us; randy.weber@house.state.tx.us; jenna.watts_hc@house.state.tx.us; becky.cohen@house.state.tx.us; brian.waldrup@house.state.tx.us; belinda.pustka@house.state.tx.us; stephanie.russell@house.state.tx.us; cory.howell@house.state.tx.us; katy.johnson@house.state.tx.us; maggie.irwin@house.state.tx.us; sierra.stephens@house.state.tx.us; patricia.conradt@house.state.tx.us; mary.throop@house.state.tx.us; chara.mcmichael@house.state.tx.us; rita.ashley@house.state.tx.us
A Texpatriate attempting grad school in Chicago
Showing posts with label Rob Eissler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rob Eissler. Show all posts
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
House Committee Assignments
Texas House Speaker Joe Straus has finally announced the committee assignments for the 82nd Texas House. As I predicted last month the partisan break down of the committee chairs roughly reflects the distribution of party control in the House with 11 Democratic chairs and 25 Republicans (not including the 4 select and joint committee chairs, all republicans).
House committees that queer Texans will want to watch very carefully:
Public Education - will get the anti-bullying bills. Chairman Rob Eissler scheduled the hearing for HB 1323 (last sessions anti-bullying bill) very late last session, but he did schedule a hearing and the committee eventually voted to send the bill to the floor for a vote of the whole House. Unfortunately, time ran out last session (more info on HB 1323). Rep. Strama, whose HB 224 is expected to be the water bearer for anti-bullying bills, is on the committee this session.
Public Health - will get HB 405, which would allow same-sex parents to get accurate birth certificates for their children. Chairwoman Lois Kolkhorst was visibly moved by testimony last session on this bill, lets hope that causes her to schedule it for an early hearing.
Criminal Jurisprudence - will get HB 604, the repeal of Texas's unconstitutional sodomy law and HB 172, the study of the effectiveness of the Texas Hate Crimes Act. Chairman Gallego has a solid record of voting in the best interest of queer Texans, but repealing the unconstitutional sodomy law, however common-sense, is going to a hard sell. Plus, with virulent homophobes Wayne Christian, Bill Zedler and Will Hartnett it seems unlikely that common sense will beat out bigotry. The Hate Crimes study has a better chance, it made it out of committee last session, but it's hard to predict what will happen this session.
Insurance - will get HB 208 prohibiting insurance companies from discriminating on the basis and sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. Chairman Smithee hasn't let this bill through in past sessions and I'd be shocked if he lets it through this session. Smithee takes every chance he can get to hurt queer Texans, he's not likely to pass this chance up either.
State Affairs - will get HB 665, which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. This bill, or a version of it, has been filed every session for over a decade, and it never gets a hearing. While new Chairman Byron Cook is an immense improvement over old Chairman Burt Solomons it's unlikely that this bill will go anywhere.
Now that we have committees bills are going to start moving left and right. The 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature is finally getting going!
House committees that queer Texans will want to watch very carefully:
Public Education - will get the anti-bullying bills. Chairman Rob Eissler scheduled the hearing for HB 1323 (last sessions anti-bullying bill) very late last session, but he did schedule a hearing and the committee eventually voted to send the bill to the floor for a vote of the whole House. Unfortunately, time ran out last session (more info on HB 1323). Rep. Strama, whose HB 224 is expected to be the water bearer for anti-bullying bills, is on the committee this session.
Public Health - will get HB 405, which would allow same-sex parents to get accurate birth certificates for their children. Chairwoman Lois Kolkhorst was visibly moved by testimony last session on this bill, lets hope that causes her to schedule it for an early hearing.
Criminal Jurisprudence - will get HB 604, the repeal of Texas's unconstitutional sodomy law and HB 172, the study of the effectiveness of the Texas Hate Crimes Act. Chairman Gallego has a solid record of voting in the best interest of queer Texans, but repealing the unconstitutional sodomy law, however common-sense, is going to a hard sell. Plus, with virulent homophobes Wayne Christian, Bill Zedler and Will Hartnett it seems unlikely that common sense will beat out bigotry. The Hate Crimes study has a better chance, it made it out of committee last session, but it's hard to predict what will happen this session.
Insurance - will get HB 208 prohibiting insurance companies from discriminating on the basis and sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. Chairman Smithee hasn't let this bill through in past sessions and I'd be shocked if he lets it through this session. Smithee takes every chance he can get to hurt queer Texans, he's not likely to pass this chance up either.
State Affairs - will get HB 665, which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. This bill, or a version of it, has been filed every session for over a decade, and it never gets a hearing. While new Chairman Byron Cook is an immense improvement over old Chairman Burt Solomons it's unlikely that this bill will go anywhere.
Now that we have committees bills are going to start moving left and right. The 82nd regular session of the Texas Legislature is finally getting going!
Monday, January 10, 2011
Straus Wins GOP Caucus' Speaker Vote
Quorum Report tweets that Speaker Straus has won the Republican caucus vote for Speaker with 70 out of 100 votes (for more information on the unorthodox practice of taking a caucus vote for House Speaker see Legislative Queery's post UPDATE: Chisum Remains in Speakers Race).
Unconfirmed reports indicate that the vote was stopped after Straus received 70 votes so it is possible that he actually had much broader support. It is now all but certain that Joe Straus will remain House Speaker for another session. With that settled the next major step in getting the session underway will be the adoption of the House's rules, followed by the appointment of committee chairs by the Speaker.
Straus is a Republican from Bexar County. He has been praised for his even-handed and statesmen-like approach to the Speakership and vilified by the far right for not suppressing moderate and liberal members.
The Texas State Constitution allows the House to adopt its own rules within certain guidelines. The rules generally remain about the same with minor tweaks here and there to address issues that have risen since the last revision. It takes a two-thirds majority of the House to approve the rules.
(With the new Republican super-majority it is possible that an attempt will be made to majorly edit the rules to make it easier to pass conservative legislative priorities. Last session a change in Senate Rules allowed voter suppression legislation that had stalled in previous sessions to sail through the Senate, creating a major crisis when it reached the House and the Democratic leadership slowed House business to a standstill to prevent its passage. It is possible that something similar may be tried in the House this session.)
Once the rules have been adopted the next order of business is for the Speaker to appoint chairs, vice-chairs and members to each of the House's standing committees (the exact number and nature of committees is laid out in the House Rules, so appointments can not be made until the rules are agreed upon). Committee Chairs determine which bills will receive hearings and in what order and which bills will be voted out of committee. A chairpersonship is a very powerful position.
Historically both Democratic and Republican speakers have appointed chairs from both parties with the appointments roughly divided between parties in proportion to that party's seats in the House. If that pattern holds true we should see about 11 Democratic committee chairs and 23 Republicans.
Assuming the committee structure this session is similar to what it's been in the past (which seems likely), most media will be focused on the chairs of the Appropriations, Elections, Redistricting, Border and Intergovernmental Affairs, State Affairs and Ways and Means committees. These committees will likely handle the highest profile issues like the budget, voter suppression, redistricting, and immigration. It is very likely that all of those chairpersonships will go to Republicans.
Most of the legislation that will most directly effect the queer community, however, is likely to go through the Public Education Committee (anti-bullying), the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee (Hate Crime reform) and the Insurance Committee (insurance non-discrimination).
Straus's chairs last session of those committees were: Rob Eissler (R), Public Education; John Smithee (R) - Insurance and Pete Gallego (D) - Criminal Jurisprudence.
Last session Chairman Eissler was fairly supportive of anti-bullying legislation, scheduling it for a hearing and bringing it up for a vote, if a bit late in the session. He supported Straus's bid to remain speaker so it seems likely that he may keep his chairmanship. If so, the public attention on bullying and the early filing of several anti-bullying bills will likely mean an earlier hearing date, and hopefully earlier passage out of committee.
Chairman Smithee is one of what I like to call the "gang of 37" - arch conservatives who have consistently opposed any legislation that improves the lives of queer people - regardless of how minor. If he remains chairman of the House Committee on Insurance it seems unlikely that any effort to outlaw insurance discrimination based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity and Expression will succeed.
Smithee is also frequently named as a potential candidate for Speaker. He has supported Straus in the past but his potential as a rival makes it important for Straus to reward his loyalty. It seems almost certain that Smithee will be appointed as a committee chair... but which one? Speaker Straus will want to be certain that the chairs of the high profile committees and the chairs of the procedural committees like Calendars are all Republican stalwarts. He may choose to promote Smithee to a more powerful position. If so, we may have a new chair of Insurance, and a new hope for justice.
Chairman Gallego has a solid record of votes in favor of the best interest of the queer community. Last session his committee sent through Marc Veasey's HB 616 (refiled this session as HB 172) which would study the effectiveness of Texas' current Hate Crimes Law and suggest improvements, but the bill stalled waiting to reach the House floor.
There will be fewer Democratic Chairs this session, there is no getting around that. Gallego may be one of the Democrats who lose their chairmanship. I will be watching this appointment carefully.
Expect to learn the new lineup of committee chairs within a week or so. The outcome is crucial to the eventual success or failure of many vital bills.
Unconfirmed reports indicate that the vote was stopped after Straus received 70 votes so it is possible that he actually had much broader support. It is now all but certain that Joe Straus will remain House Speaker for another session. With that settled the next major step in getting the session underway will be the adoption of the House's rules, followed by the appointment of committee chairs by the Speaker.
Straus is a Republican from Bexar County. He has been praised for his even-handed and statesmen-like approach to the Speakership and vilified by the far right for not suppressing moderate and liberal members.
The Texas State Constitution allows the House to adopt its own rules within certain guidelines. The rules generally remain about the same with minor tweaks here and there to address issues that have risen since the last revision. It takes a two-thirds majority of the House to approve the rules.
(With the new Republican super-majority it is possible that an attempt will be made to majorly edit the rules to make it easier to pass conservative legislative priorities. Last session a change in Senate Rules allowed voter suppression legislation that had stalled in previous sessions to sail through the Senate, creating a major crisis when it reached the House and the Democratic leadership slowed House business to a standstill to prevent its passage. It is possible that something similar may be tried in the House this session.)
Once the rules have been adopted the next order of business is for the Speaker to appoint chairs, vice-chairs and members to each of the House's standing committees (the exact number and nature of committees is laid out in the House Rules, so appointments can not be made until the rules are agreed upon). Committee Chairs determine which bills will receive hearings and in what order and which bills will be voted out of committee. A chairpersonship is a very powerful position.
Historically both Democratic and Republican speakers have appointed chairs from both parties with the appointments roughly divided between parties in proportion to that party's seats in the House. If that pattern holds true we should see about 11 Democratic committee chairs and 23 Republicans.
Assuming the committee structure this session is similar to what it's been in the past (which seems likely), most media will be focused on the chairs of the Appropriations, Elections, Redistricting, Border and Intergovernmental Affairs, State Affairs and Ways and Means committees. These committees will likely handle the highest profile issues like the budget, voter suppression, redistricting, and immigration. It is very likely that all of those chairpersonships will go to Republicans.
Most of the legislation that will most directly effect the queer community, however, is likely to go through the Public Education Committee (anti-bullying), the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee (Hate Crime reform) and the Insurance Committee (insurance non-discrimination).
Straus's chairs last session of those committees were: Rob Eissler (R), Public Education; John Smithee (R) - Insurance and Pete Gallego (D) - Criminal Jurisprudence.
Last session Chairman Eissler was fairly supportive of anti-bullying legislation, scheduling it for a hearing and bringing it up for a vote, if a bit late in the session. He supported Straus's bid to remain speaker so it seems likely that he may keep his chairmanship. If so, the public attention on bullying and the early filing of several anti-bullying bills will likely mean an earlier hearing date, and hopefully earlier passage out of committee.
Chairman Smithee is one of what I like to call the "gang of 37" - arch conservatives who have consistently opposed any legislation that improves the lives of queer people - regardless of how minor. If he remains chairman of the House Committee on Insurance it seems unlikely that any effort to outlaw insurance discrimination based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity and Expression will succeed.
Smithee is also frequently named as a potential candidate for Speaker. He has supported Straus in the past but his potential as a rival makes it important for Straus to reward his loyalty. It seems almost certain that Smithee will be appointed as a committee chair... but which one? Speaker Straus will want to be certain that the chairs of the high profile committees and the chairs of the procedural committees like Calendars are all Republican stalwarts. He may choose to promote Smithee to a more powerful position. If so, we may have a new chair of Insurance, and a new hope for justice.
Chairman Gallego has a solid record of votes in favor of the best interest of the queer community. Last session his committee sent through Marc Veasey's HB 616 (refiled this session as HB 172) which would study the effectiveness of Texas' current Hate Crimes Law and suggest improvements, but the bill stalled waiting to reach the House floor.
There will be fewer Democratic Chairs this session, there is no getting around that. Gallego may be one of the Democrats who lose their chairmanship. I will be watching this appointment carefully.
Expect to learn the new lineup of committee chairs within a week or so. The outcome is crucial to the eventual success or failure of many vital bills.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Anti-Bullying Legislation in Texas Part II
Be sure to read Part I
So, if HB 1323 had overwhelming support, why didn't it become law?
One of the great truisms of the Texas legislature is that the system is designed to prevent things from getting done. Every other year 183 people meet for 140 days. Every decision about how to improve the lives of Texans that needs to be made must be made by those people in that time. If not it must wait another 2 years for the process to start over again.
In the end HB 1323 just ran out of time. 140 days in the session, that's all. In addition, there are a number of deadlines that a bill must make along the process. HB 1323 barely missed an important one on May 14th, 2009, and with that thousands of Texas schoolchildren were left to suffer for another two years.
Let's look at what happened...
February 17, 2009
Day 35 of the legislative session.
The first bills of the session were filed on November 10, 2008, but HB 1323 wasn't filled until this day. In the House bills are numbered in the order they are filed (except for the first 10 bills, which are reserved for the budget and issues the Speaker of the House considers important).
February 26th, 2009
Day 44 of the legislative session
HB 1323 is read for the first time on the House floor. Each bill gets a "First Reading", which consists of reading out the bill number, the name of the legislator who filed it, and a very brief description of the bill, known as a caption. Bills are read in the order they are numbered, so it takes awhile to get to number 1323. During First Reading each bill is referred to a committee which is charged with holding public hearings on it. HB 1323 was referred to the Public Education Committee.
The good news is that Committees can hear bills in any order they want. The Chair of each committee (who is appointed by the Speaker of the House) gets to determine the order in which bills are "heard" by the committees. Committee Chairpersonships are usually given to allies of the Speaker or House members who have served for so long that their seniority demands it.
March 31, 2009
Day 77 of the legislative session
Rep. Rob Eissler, a Republican from the Houston Suburb of the Woodlands was chair of the Public Education Committee last session. Rep. Eissler scheduled the bill for a hearing on March 31, 33 days after it was first referred to his committee. As I said before the bill was overwhelmingly supported in the committee hearing.
Committees do not generally vote on bills on the same day they are heard. The Chair calls for a vote on each bill (it is possible for a majority of the members of the committee to force a vote, but that is almost unheard of). So although the bill was heard on March 31st, it was "left pending" in committee until:
April 9, 2009
Day 86 of the legislative session
The 11 person committee voted: 6 in favor, none opposing and 5 absent (it's not unusual for a fair number of members of a committee to be absent for a vote, all house members serve on at least 2 committees, and must also appear before other committees to present, or 'lay out', their bills - a sort of hand-shake agreement between members means that the chair will usually not bring a bill to a vote at all unless it's going to pass anyway).
But wait! Just because a bill has been voted out of committee doesn't mean that it's on its way. All bills have to be placed on one of the House's "Calendars". These are lists of different kinds of bills that will be considered by the House. The House has 7 different calendars, each dealing with a different area of the business of the House. Certain calendars are considered on different days and certain calendars take precedence over others.
Most of the 7 calendars are overseen by the Calendars Committee, one of the most powerful, and busy, committees in the House. The Calendars Committee requires that all of the paperwork on each bill be carefully filled out and formatted so that their job of figuring out which calendar to place each bill on is easier. The committee clerk has to file that paperwork and then it must be formally accepted on the floor, which happened on:
April 20, 2009
Day 96 of the legislative session
The Calendars Committee reads through every bill and determines which calendar to place it on. Once it's placed on a calendar the bill will get a "Second Reading" which will be the first time the entire membership of the House will get to discuss the bill.
The Calendars Committee considered HB 1323 and decided it should go on the General State Calendar. (The General State Calendar is for bills that are not an emergency issue, will affect the entire state, but are limited as to whom they affect. HB 1323 would have only affected school children, their parents, and school administrators - not every Texan, and so it was placed on General State).
HB 1323 was placed on the General State Calendar on:
May 8, 2009
Day 114 of the legislative session
So HB 1323 got in line behind several hundred other bills to get its second reading. At this point HB 1323 was less than half way on the road to becoming a law. With several thousand bills to consider each session the Legislature has created deadlines all along the 140 day schedule; hurdles that each bill must pass by a certain time or be forced to wait another 2 years to be considered.
Last session the deadline for second readings was:
Midnight, May 14, 2009
day 120 of the legislative session
So the debate on HB 1323 had to begin before then. When midnight fell the House was still deep in heated debate on a different bill and HB 1323 was still in line. It missed being read by 11 bills, mostly due to procedural delays caused by Rep. Warren Chisum, the notorious bigot who brought us the Texas version of the "Defense of Marriage Act".
(I honestly doubt that Chisum intentionally delayed the work of the House to kill this particular bill, as I doubt he was paying much attention to it, but the fact remains that his dithering and obstinacy on the floor caused the death of a good bill.)
Would HB 1323 have become law if it had made the deadline? It seems unlikely. After second reading there is a third reading on the house floor, another opportunity for debate, and another vote. The bill must then be referred to the Senate where the whole process begins again (first reading, referred to committee, heard in committee, voted out of committee, referred to Calendars, placed on a calendar, second reading, third reading), then if the Senate made any changes to the bill the differences between the House version and the Senate version must be hashed out in what is called a "Conference Committee". Then the House and the Senate would have had to vote to approve the compromise that the Conference Committee came up with and refer the bill to the Governor, who can still veto it.
(There is a shortcut available. If a version of the bill is introduced in the Senate (known as a "Senate Companion") at the beginning of the session the House version can take its place in the process, saving a great deal of time. But HB 1323 did not have a Senate Companion, so it would have had to go through the whole Senate Process, and with only 20 days left in the session it seems unlikely that would have happened.)
What can be done to insure that the bill passes in 2011? Read Part III
So, if HB 1323 had overwhelming support, why didn't it become law?
One of the great truisms of the Texas legislature is that the system is designed to prevent things from getting done. Every other year 183 people meet for 140 days. Every decision about how to improve the lives of Texans that needs to be made must be made by those people in that time. If not it must wait another 2 years for the process to start over again.
In the end HB 1323 just ran out of time. 140 days in the session, that's all. In addition, there are a number of deadlines that a bill must make along the process. HB 1323 barely missed an important one on May 14th, 2009, and with that thousands of Texas schoolchildren were left to suffer for another two years.
Let's look at what happened...
February 17, 2009
Day 35 of the legislative session.
The first bills of the session were filed on November 10, 2008, but HB 1323 wasn't filled until this day. In the House bills are numbered in the order they are filed (except for the first 10 bills, which are reserved for the budget and issues the Speaker of the House considers important).
February 26th, 2009
Day 44 of the legislative session
HB 1323 is read for the first time on the House floor. Each bill gets a "First Reading", which consists of reading out the bill number, the name of the legislator who filed it, and a very brief description of the bill, known as a caption. Bills are read in the order they are numbered, so it takes awhile to get to number 1323. During First Reading each bill is referred to a committee which is charged with holding public hearings on it. HB 1323 was referred to the Public Education Committee.
The good news is that Committees can hear bills in any order they want. The Chair of each committee (who is appointed by the Speaker of the House) gets to determine the order in which bills are "heard" by the committees. Committee Chairpersonships are usually given to allies of the Speaker or House members who have served for so long that their seniority demands it.
March 31, 2009
Day 77 of the legislative session
Rep. Rob Eissler, a Republican from the Houston Suburb of the Woodlands was chair of the Public Education Committee last session. Rep. Eissler scheduled the bill for a hearing on March 31, 33 days after it was first referred to his committee. As I said before the bill was overwhelmingly supported in the committee hearing.
Committees do not generally vote on bills on the same day they are heard. The Chair calls for a vote on each bill (it is possible for a majority of the members of the committee to force a vote, but that is almost unheard of). So although the bill was heard on March 31st, it was "left pending" in committee until:
April 9, 2009
Day 86 of the legislative session
The 11 person committee voted: 6 in favor, none opposing and 5 absent (it's not unusual for a fair number of members of a committee to be absent for a vote, all house members serve on at least 2 committees, and must also appear before other committees to present, or 'lay out', their bills - a sort of hand-shake agreement between members means that the chair will usually not bring a bill to a vote at all unless it's going to pass anyway).
But wait! Just because a bill has been voted out of committee doesn't mean that it's on its way. All bills have to be placed on one of the House's "Calendars". These are lists of different kinds of bills that will be considered by the House. The House has 7 different calendars, each dealing with a different area of the business of the House. Certain calendars are considered on different days and certain calendars take precedence over others.
Most of the 7 calendars are overseen by the Calendars Committee, one of the most powerful, and busy, committees in the House. The Calendars Committee requires that all of the paperwork on each bill be carefully filled out and formatted so that their job of figuring out which calendar to place each bill on is easier. The committee clerk has to file that paperwork and then it must be formally accepted on the floor, which happened on:
April 20, 2009
Day 96 of the legislative session
The Calendars Committee reads through every bill and determines which calendar to place it on. Once it's placed on a calendar the bill will get a "Second Reading" which will be the first time the entire membership of the House will get to discuss the bill.
The Calendars Committee considered HB 1323 and decided it should go on the General State Calendar. (The General State Calendar is for bills that are not an emergency issue, will affect the entire state, but are limited as to whom they affect. HB 1323 would have only affected school children, their parents, and school administrators - not every Texan, and so it was placed on General State).
HB 1323 was placed on the General State Calendar on:
May 8, 2009
Day 114 of the legislative session
So HB 1323 got in line behind several hundred other bills to get its second reading. At this point HB 1323 was less than half way on the road to becoming a law. With several thousand bills to consider each session the Legislature has created deadlines all along the 140 day schedule; hurdles that each bill must pass by a certain time or be forced to wait another 2 years to be considered.
Last session the deadline for second readings was:
Midnight, May 14, 2009
day 120 of the legislative session
So the debate on HB 1323 had to begin before then. When midnight fell the House was still deep in heated debate on a different bill and HB 1323 was still in line. It missed being read by 11 bills, mostly due to procedural delays caused by Rep. Warren Chisum, the notorious bigot who brought us the Texas version of the "Defense of Marriage Act".
(I honestly doubt that Chisum intentionally delayed the work of the House to kill this particular bill, as I doubt he was paying much attention to it, but the fact remains that his dithering and obstinacy on the floor caused the death of a good bill.)
Would HB 1323 have become law if it had made the deadline? It seems unlikely. After second reading there is a third reading on the house floor, another opportunity for debate, and another vote. The bill must then be referred to the Senate where the whole process begins again (first reading, referred to committee, heard in committee, voted out of committee, referred to Calendars, placed on a calendar, second reading, third reading), then if the Senate made any changes to the bill the differences between the House version and the Senate version must be hashed out in what is called a "Conference Committee". Then the House and the Senate would have had to vote to approve the compromise that the Conference Committee came up with and refer the bill to the Governor, who can still veto it.
(There is a shortcut available. If a version of the bill is introduced in the Senate (known as a "Senate Companion") at the beginning of the session the House version can take its place in the process, saving a great deal of time. But HB 1323 did not have a Senate Companion, so it would have had to go through the whole Senate Process, and with only 20 days left in the session it seems unlikely that would have happened.)
What can be done to insure that the bill passes in 2011? Read Part III
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)