Opinion: A Texas tradition I wish Washington would embrace

  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

It may surprise you that the Texas House of Representatives, an institution you probably know for the occasional quorum break, lecherous treatment of interns, or policy folly, has a far more bipartisan approach to governance than the United States House of Representatives. And it’s a difference that might have avoided Congress’ flirtation with financial catastrophe. 

The U.S. and Texas flags fly over the Capitol.
The U.S. and Texas flags fly over the Capitol.

By custom but not by rule, Congress elects the Speaker of the House from within the caucus of the majority party, with zero support from the minority. Earlier this year we saw the consequence of this, as Kevin McCarthy finally eked out the speakership. On the 15th and final ballot, all of McCarthy’s 216 votes came from Republicans.

To consolidate the Republican caucus behind him, McCarthy was forced to make concessions to his party’s most extreme members, including that any one member of the House can move to “vacate the chair” – a motion which, if passed, would force a new election for a new speaker. 

That rule looms ominously over the current debt ceiling negotiations. If Democrats vote as a bloc to vacate the chair, a five-Republican revolt is all it would take to bring down McCarthy’s speakership. 

In Texas, rather than consolidating support within their own party’s caucus, the speaker assembles a bipartisan coalition which, once it adds up to 50% plus one, typically incorporates stragglers into a supermajority as everyone rushes to get on the bandwagon. 

The effect of this bipartisan process on policymaking is significant. To be clear: the majority does not forfeit control, and the minority does not fall in line. Indeed, on the most polarizing and ideological issues, the majority is merciless in its exercise of power, and the minority is vigorous in dissent.

But it does engender a process that is by its nature more inclusive than in Congress, with members of the minority party appointed to chair committees, creating a leadership team that provides the Speaker with bipartisan feedback.

As a result, the all-important vote on the state’s $300 billion biennial budget nearly always passes with a large, bipartisan majority - with a few no votes coming from both ends of the ideological spectrum. It’s difficult to imagine anything like the current standoff in Congress on an issue where gridlock could lead to dire financial and political consequences. 

When I was elected to the Texas House in 2004, the Speaker of the House was one of the most conservative members of the Republicans’ 87-63 majority. But over the next four years, that majority would diminish to a razor-thin 76-74 (proportionally similar to today’s narrow margin in Congress). 

At that point, a sizable majority of Democrats partnered with eleven moderate Republicans to support a center-right Republican, Joe Straus, as speaker. Straus’ more-conservative predecessor had governed with a coalition of mostly Republicans and a few Democrats, but as the partisan split in the House approached parity, a well-organized Democratic caucus earned a prominent seat at the policymaking table. 

Straus was still a conservative, and governed like one, reflecting the conservative majority in the state. This served him well two years later, after the 2010 elections handed Republicans a 101-49 supermajority. Despite having come to power on the votes of Democrats, he retained power with the votes of Republicans. 

I’ve been out of politics for 10 years, but in January I attended opening ceremonies in the Texas House, less than a week after McCarthy’s chaotic election. The incumbent Speaker, conservative Republican Dade Phelan, faced a challenge explicitly predicated on animus toward the Texas tradition of a bipartisan speaker and bipartisan committee chairs.  

Phelan was re-elected by a vote of 145-3. “After watching Congress attempt to function last week, I cannot imagine why some want Texas to be like D.C.,” Phelan said.  

In this respect at least, perhaps D.C. should be a bit more like Texas. 

Strama is director of the Annette Strauss Institute for Civic Life at the University of Texas, and served in the Texas House of Representatives from 2005 to 2013.

This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Opinion: A Texas tradition I wish D.C. would embrace