Reply With Quote
Paybacks are ...eh?
That little trip to Oklahoma last session is coming back to bite the Democrats.
Tax votes reveal voting tricks used in House
Dukes' arrangement to cover House absence doesn't quite work out.
By Jason Embry, Mike Ward
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
> Friday, July 08, 2005
When Rep. Dawnna Dukes left for a family trip to France last Thursday, she entrusted her vote on a major piece of tax legislation to one of the highest-ranking Republicans in the Texas House.
But things didn't quite work out as she had planned. And with the Austin Democrat out of the country and unable to vote, the GOP-backed proposal passed by a single vote.
Dukes, knowing that she was likely to miss the vote on a proposal to cut billions of dollars in school property taxes while raising billions with broader sales taxes, made an agreement with Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, that Pitts would register "present not voting" on the tax bill. Since Dukes would have voted "no" and Pitts would have voted "yes" if both had been present, a decision by Pitts not to vote would have had the same net effect — the two members would have canceled each other out.
"She understood that would kind of make her vote count, and it made her feel she could leave town," said Pamela McPeters, chief of staff to Dukes, who was returning from France on Thursday and unavailable for comment.
But Pitts decided early this week that he needed to vote for the bill after all, and he did just that when it came up for preliminary approval Wednesday night and a final vote Thursday. With Pitts voting yes and Dukes out of the country, the measure passed on a one-vote margin. It won final approval on Thursday and is headed to the Senate.
In 1997, Dukes also missed a key House vote on a tax bill because she was attending a seminar in New York unrelated to her legislative duties.
The Pitts-Dukes incident was one of several during the House's two-day tax debate that illustrated the ways lawmakers try to finesse the legislative process to minimize the damage when they don't show up.
Pitts heads the House Appropriations Committee, on which Dukes sits, and the two worked closely on a state budget this year. He said Thursday he made the arrangement with Dukes last week but changed his mind after he went home over the weekend.
"I went home and talked to cons uents, and they said how important it was, property taxes, and that I needed to be shown for property tax reduction," Pitts said.
He said one of his aides called Dukes' office on Tuesday and said he would have to vote for the tax proposal.
He also said he called a couple of other Democratic House members to see if there was anything they could do to help Dukes, but to no avail.
"I felt bad about this," Pitts said. "But this is something that I understand is done all the time, that people change their minds, that the other person that's out of town changes their mind." He said he was not pressured by anyone else to vote for the plan, and House Speaker Tom Crad 's office said it played no role in Pitts' decision.
Dukes' staff, however, offered a slightly different account.
McPeters said a Pitts aide told her that Pitts changed his mind after talking to Nancy Fisher, the chief of staff to Crad . The aide said Fisher told Pitts that Crad "needed all the votes he could get" on the tax bill, McPeters said.
For several decades, House rules have allowed lawmakers to pair their votes to neutralize absences, although House Parliamentarian Denise Davis said either side can break the agreement at any time.
When the House took a final vote on the tax plan Thursday, four members who were not there paired with four who were. Dukes was paired with Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless, who registered as "present not voting."
"The pairing rule is among individual members, and it's been there forever," Crad said.
Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, said Pitts should not have been allowed to change his mind.
"It takes two people to make an agreement, and it should take two to break it," she said."The House has rules that allow this pairing. I think (Pitts) should have voted a white light (for present-not voting)."
Dukes wasn't the only Democrat missing from Wednesday's preliminary vote.
Reps. Trey Martinez-Fischer of San Antonio and Craig Eiland of Galveston also were not there, but when the vote was first taken, both were shown as voting "no." That allowed opponents of the tax proposal to think momentarily that they had killed it.
Dukes and one other absent lawmaker were not shown as voting because they had received excused absences earlier in the day.
House records show that a colleague filed a request on Dukes' behalf that she be officially excused for "important business" while in France.
When lawmakers called for a verification of who was on the floor and who was not, it became apparent that Martinez-Fischer and Eiland were not there.
The new count gave Republican House leaders a one-vote win.
Eiland, who returned for Thursday's final vote, was at an out-of-state conference for a legislative group that he heads. Martinez-Fischer's chief of staff would not say Thursday where he was for either of the tax votes.
Leading Democrats in the House did not blame the absent lawmakers for their defeat, saying Crad would have convinced some of the Republicans who voted against him to switch sides if needed.
Lawmakers regularly vote for colleagues who are not on the House floor or standing away from their desks. Suzy Woodford of Common Cause Texas said this act, known as "ghost voting," should not be allowed because it gives the public the impression that a lawmaker who missed a vote was there for it.
"We want the voters to be able to rely on the record," she said.
Questions about voting practices were also raised Thursday when two Republican lawmakers, Rep. Glen Hegar of Katy and Rep. Vicki Truitt of Keller, missed the final vote on the tax proposal.
Both had voted against the measure Wednesday, and if they had done so again Thursday the measure could have been defeated.
Hegar and Truitt denied that Crad or any other Republican leader told them to miss the vote.
Hegar said he had to return home to tend to some personal events he had planned with his wife and children, thinking that the House would take the final vote right after the preliminary vote late Wednesday. It is not unusual for the House to do so.
Truitt said she was giving a speech in San Antonio during Thursday's vote.
"I had already expressed my sentiment about the bill," she said.
------
Blaze's Take: This is funny as . I understand that there should be some decorum expected from each other, but it's too easy to break the agreements. Frankly, I think it's good that this is coming to light.
Representatives either need to be there for votes or stop complaining when the opposite of what they want happens.
Some will say that representatives also have lives that they need to tend to and that's true. You know the way to fix it...get off your asses and fiugure this out without having to call special session after special session.
, they shouldn't even get paid for special sessions. They're paid salaries, now do the work in the time alloted for pay or work longer for the same amount.
We'd have bills passed and/or defeated very quickly if that went down.
Paybacks are ...eh?
That little trip to Oklahoma last session is coming back to bite the Democrats.
They're going to have to vote on the bill that comes out of conference with the Senate anyway. Maybe she'll show up the next time.
Pitts is a bag. He should not go back on his word (with a committee member!), even though I think that this is b.s. and elected officials should represent their cons uents instead of taking care of business in France. All this could have been avoided if they hadn't been debating lude cheerleaders and the official state dog during the regular sesssion. Then they could be back to their regular jobs right now.
Those were state senators, buddy. Wrong group of congressmen.
Perry sucks...He's a horrible governor
Yes, but what does he have to do with this article? It's about house voting, not the Guv'nr.
because you were talking about how nothing ever seems to get done except crap like cheerleading and dogs issues, and when the real meat and potatoes comes to the table, its a total standstill...i guess to me that reflects on Perry's abilities as a leader and governor
Same party.Those were state senators, buddy. Wrong group of congressmen.
OK, I can go with that. If Perry wasn't so concerned about getting his picture in the yearbook he might actually do something leadership-related.
Rick Perry and Leticia Vandepute are exhibits A & B on what happens when you stop being a Texan first and foremost and start being a Republican or Democrat.
National politics don't belong at the state level.
I wouldnt mind seeing One Tough Grandma as gov
WTF!? How dare he change his mind! What is he...a flip-flopper!?!?!
Yep. And a sucker. He owes the other rep. an apology.
Incidentally, does anyone else think that the state house should have an odd number of representatives? I think it's like 150, and it could have possibly avoided this situation. Then again, if people would actually show up and vote on the most important issue in the last 10 years that would be good too.
Don't get me started on "Hogwash" herself... this woman wanted to pay for every kid to go to two years of higher education out of the taxpayer's pocketbook - and she's the friggin' STATE COMPTROLLER. She's supposed to be good with money...she knows how much there is to work with! So much for a conservative running limited government.I wouldnt mind seeing One Tough Grandma as gov
If anything, we should be paying for the final two years of school, if they make it that far they'll probably graduate- but that would be too expensive.
yeah, but if theres anything i dont mind my taxes going towards its education, especially if people can't otherwise afford itthis woman wanted to pay for every kid to go to two years of higher education out of the taxpayer's pocketbook
it would be much more expensive, thats why i think the first 2 years(or "basics" classes) were a good ideaIf anything, we should be paying for the final two years of school, if they make it that far they'll probably graduate- but that would be too expensive
i guess she'll show up next time instead vacationing in france!
Nothing wrong with a litte R&R every month or so.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush
Did he miss a vote?
nope, r&r is needed... but when something you feel is important at work, you should be there...
I don't see what the big deal is.
She went on vacation, like she is en led to, and the agreement didn't work out.
The final responsibility was hers. But I'm sure that there are others who miss votes for one reason or another.
But that's government for ya.
I look at it this way, JC.
I don't think she should be ing. If she wanted her voice heard, her vote to count, she should have been there.
And I still believe that reps shouldn't get paid for special sessions.
exactly!
Pitts reputation should hereby be of someone without any credibility...
And Dukes shouldn't be dumb enough to schedule her vacations durring a session.
While Pitts showed the colors of a bag, the responsibility for this one has to fall on Dukes.
Never trust a republican to keep his word.
should've showed up...simple as that...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
