TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/texa ... wer/njskZ/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There are 20 Rs and 11 Ds. It now takes 19 senators to bring a floor vote.

I'm not sure what the long-term ramifications of this will be, but it's looking like the opposite of what's going to happen at the federal level right now.

EDIT: meaning that lots of things will go through vs. almost nothing going through.

This is good news. 2/3rds or 3/4ths is usually reserved for really important matters such as Constitutional amendments. 3/5ths is much more likely to result in the will of the people being carried out in normal legislative matters when the people have elected a solid majority, as they have for the past six years. This also will put a lot more pressure on Strauss, because he will no longer be able to pass bills through the House for appearance's sake in the knowledge that they will not pass in the Senate. Anything that reduces his ability to play games and forces him to reveal his true nature is a good thing. It may also open the eyes of some conservatives who have continued to support Strauss despite his deceitful behavior.

When the opposing party gets the majority it will apply with them also. Look what happened with our Federal Senate and the judicial appointments before Christmas.

MeMelYup wrote:When the opposing party gets the majority it will apply with them also. Look what happened with our Federal Senate and the judicial appointments before Christmas.

Yes, that's true. I still think it's a good thing. The minority should have a voice, but they should not be able to control the legislation that passes their chamber, only influence it.

Can't help but wonder how many more "social issues" bills will make it to the floor and erode our liberties?
This sword definitely has 2 edges.

MeMelYup wrote:When the opposing party gets the majority it will apply with them also. Look what happened with our Federal Senate and the judicial appointments before Christmas.

You're right. However, Democrats would change the rule to accomplish their legislative goals just as Harry Reid did in the U.S. Senate, if they get the chance. Democrats argue that the rule had been in place since 1947 and that too is true. However, what they don't want to talk about is that, prior to the Republican surge, the Democrats controlled the Texas Senate with sufficient votes to easily get the 21 needed to bring a bill up for debate. The 21 vote rule was never an impediment to Democrats.

Any rule that can be changed provides no protection whatsoever. For the 2/3 "rule" to be meaningful, it would have to be in statute or a constitutional provision. I would oppose either. Tyranny is bad, whether it is majority or minority tyranny. Yesterday's speeches by Democrat demigods was sickening. No Republican bill has ever been improved by Democrat meddling. In fact, the 21 vote rule actually resulted in more "bad" bills coming to the floor because Senators had to trade "blocker" votes to get their own bill to the floor.

I was especially disgusted, though not surprised, by Sen. Ellis essentially saying that a Senator should lie to his constituents to get elected, then do what they want in session. Austin Democrat Sen. Watson agreed with Sen. Ellis. If anyone doubts this, listen to the debate, if you can stomach it. http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchive/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chas.

Absolute honest question here. Wouldn't it be better if there were consistent rules in place regardless who has the majority? Seems like the rulesshould be the rules and not be made up as in sandlot games. Why should the majority be able to adjust the rules to make it better for them?

mojo84 wrote:Absolute honest question here. Wouldn't it be better if there were consistent rules in place regardless who has the majority? Seems like the rulesshould be the rules and not be made up as in sandlot games. Why should the majority be able to adjust the rules to make it better for them?

I think some rules should be set in stone, but only those that require public disclosure and public access to the process. I don't think that a minority should be able to block bills. Otherwise, elections are far less important.

Chas.

Senator Craig Estes (Rep) declined to vote on this issue, wonder where he really stands on bills important to us?

Sidro wrote:Senator Craig Estes (Rep) declined to vote on this issue, wonder where he really stands on bills important to us?

He's a huge friend of Texas gun owners!
Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Sidro wrote:Senator Craig Estes (Rep) declined to vote on this issue, wonder where he really stands on bills important to us?

He's a huge friend of Texas gun owners!
Chas.

Here is the statement from Senator Estes's Facebook page, regarding his decision to abstain from voting on the two-thirds rule:

We voted on an important rule change yesterday in the Senate, reducing the number of votes needed to bring a bill to the floor from 21 to 19. I chose not to vote on this rule because I was apprehensive about its potential effect on the representation of rural districts, such as my own. Click here to learn more about this change: http://bit.ly/1yywK5G" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;