December, 2008:

We’ve already had an exciting and eventful 2009 legislative session, and it’s still 2008. The release of the Democratic list of 64 has moved things forward, starting with an admission by Team Craddick that they really aren’t in such good shape after all.

House Appropriations Chairman Warren Chisum said his side became angry over the fact he told me House Speaker Tom Craddick is “five or six” votes short of winning re-election. Chisum is a key Craddick lieutenant in the House.

Chisum said he made his comment based on his own beliefs of where House members stand in the election. Chisum said he hasn’t seen Craddick’s list of supporters.

“They (Craddick’s close advisers) said they weren’t any shorter” after state Rep. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown, announced as a speaker candidate, Chisum said.

Chisum said without seeing the list he will have to take Craddick’s nose counters at their word.

But Chisum said with three other Craddick Republicans announcing support for Gattis it was hard from his point of view to see how Craddick could not have lost some votes. He said that is why state Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo, is calling members to find out whether Craddick can win re-election.

“If Tom’s got the numbers, he’s got them. If he doesn’t, we need to know,” Chisum said.

That’s actually a much softer version of Chisum’s earlier comments, in which he estimated Craddick’s committed supporters in the 50 to 53 range. Democrats are openly pressing Craddick on this point, as witnessed by a “Dear Colleague” letter from Austin Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, who calls on Craddick to step down and let a successor emerge peacefully. I don’t think that’s going to happen, at least not without a larger number of current Craddick supporters publicly breaking ranks, but it’s out there. And for the first time, we get an indicator that Craddick himself is genuinely worried.

Over the weekend, there were some telephone calls made by Tom Craddick in which (according to the report from one of the people on the receiving end of a call) the Speaker sounded ‘worn out, tired, and despondent’ and that for the first time in several months, the Speaker was calling on others to ask them to report what that members were hearing, rather than the Speaker himself being the provider of news as to the current state of battle between the Speaker and the ABCs. It sounded like Tom Craddick for the first time in a long time, actually found himself to be somewhat out-of-the-loop and truly unaware as to who the ABCs plus the Dunnam D’s would unite their support behind on January 2nd and what it would mean to Craddick’s future it they are able to actually pull it off.

The report I received was that the Speaker felt unsure as to how best to move forward between now and January 2nd because he has no credible intelligence to suggest who the consensus candidate might be. The Speaker did discuss additional filers for Speakers coming in the next few days. Further, both Chisum and Swinford had spoken to Smithee to see if the reports they were hearing were true and Smithee responded by saying that he was indeed seriously thinking about entering the Speaker’s race. Dan Gattis’s entry on Saturday means one fewer R vote for Craddick, while Smithee getting into the race would mean the dam is getting ready to bust the flood gates wide open and that Craddick is in serious jeopardy of losing dozens of current supporters. Craddick seemed unsure how to react–a unique position for a Speaker who is always operating from a well orchestrated script.

In theory, we will all find out who that consensus candidate is early next week, at which point we can either start singing “Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead” or lamenting what might have been. I’m hopeful that this time the insurgency will hang together, but I’m going to maintain low expectations until it actually happens. In the meantime, enjoy what remains of 2008, and get ready to hit the ground running in the new year.

UPDATE: Chisum tells the Quorum Report that he was misquoted.

Chisum said, “Last night, I was misquoted on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram website as saying that Speaker Craddick had 53 votes. That number is a misinterpretation of what I said, and certainly not what I intended to say. The speaker carries all the Republicans except for the ABCs, and his position remains very strong.”

Make of that what you will.

Short answer, probably not. But they may at least not take any backward steps, and they may take some grudging action to head off future federal requirements. That counts as progress around here.

Here’s the Chron story about the list of 64 Democratic House members who say they won’t vote for Tom Craddick for Speaker under any conditions.

“We need a new direction in the Texas House because the status quo means gridlock, and we cannot afford gridlock with the issues staring us down in the upcoming session,” said Rep. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown, who declared his candidacy Monday.

Gattis, a former committee vice-chairman under Craddick, said a bipartisan leadership style is needed now that the Republicans hold a thin advantage in the House. The Democrats’ election gains last month left House Republicans with just a 76-74 edge. By contrast, Craddick was elected speaker in 2003 when the Republicans controlled 88 seats.

“He doesn’t have the members behind him well enough for him to be able to lead a 76-74 House,” Gattis said.

Several Craddick supporters — including Rep. Mike Hamilton, R-Mauriceville; Rep Patricia Harless, R-Spring; and Rep Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham — have switched sides and are now backing Gattis.

“It’s pretty evident that Tom doesn’t have the votes,” Hamilton said.

That’s three more Republicans who have at least expressed a willingness to vote for somebody other than Craddick for Speaker. The Statesman, which notes that current Craddick supporter John Smithee of Amarillo is also contemplating a run for Speaker, adds it up and says there’s 79 (or 80, if you count Smithee), anti-Craddick votes. Burka notes that it’s a bit more complicated than that.

[E]vents may have overtaken the Democrat-ABC coalition that has 75 votes against Craddick. Gattis’s candidacy for speaker provides members with a chance to realign in coalitions FOR someone instead of merely against. Suddenly the timing is off for the ABCs. Their announcement of a candidate won’t come until the end of the week, and in the meantime Gattis can be adding to his list of supporters.

In the meantime, both the Morning News and the El Paso Times note that at least one Democrat on the list of 64, El Paso’s Rep. Chente Quintanilla, had only just recently said that he hadn’t ruled out a vote for Craddick, so that list may not be rock solid. On the other hand, while Team Craddick is busy denying the claim of majority support against him and making their own claims about having 70+ supporters (not a majority, you’ll note), they haven’t made any lists public. I’ll say again, if this were a retention vote, Craddick would lose. But until there’s one consensus candidate to oppose him, he hasn’t lost anything yet. I feel we’re getting closer to that point, but that’s not good enough. One opponent plus 75 more votes for that person, that’s what I want to see.

UPDATE: From Rep. Aaron Pena on Twitter:

The Speaker’s race appears to have narrowed to a few candidates. The end is in sight. Look for the smoke from the Sistine Chapel in days.

Pena was a Craddick supporter in 2007, and was not on the list of 64. Make of that what you will.

UPDATE: And Burka says the next Speaker will be Smithee, Gattis, or Burt Solomons. Does that count as white smoke?

The House Democratic Caucus has promised a list of 64 members who will not vote for Tom Craddick for Speaker. Via PoliTex and BOR, who lists the ten Dems not among them, here it is (PDF). As there are 12 known Republicans who oppose Craddick – hell, there’s at least that many Republicans running for Speaker – that ought to give the advantage to the forces of good. A few thoughts:

– It’s great to see the names Marisa Marquez and Tara Rios Ybarra among the signees. Many people, myself included, thought they were Craddick candidates. I’m thrilled to have been wrong about that.

– Perhaps this will satisfy Burka‘s condition that the Anybody But Craddick Republicans produce a list of solid supporters. Maybe it will get some of his more obnoxious commenters to tone it down a notch. Or maybe not. I don’t think anyone can say the ball hasn’t been advanced, and that’s a fine thing.

– If the handwriting really is on the wall, then we should see some more Rs jumping ship, once they have some assurance they won’t be exiled under new management. The same is true for the ten remaining Craddick Ds. We could easily go from 76 anti-Craddicks to 85 or more in a hurry.

– Finally, if the GOP grassroots wants to try to vent its wrath on the ABCs for teaming with so many Democrats on this, I say have at it. As I’ve said before, guys like Geren and Merritt have already withstood big punches from Team Craddick. Being an effective member is a strong defense against this kind of attack. There’s a reason some Dems got knocked off over their Craddick support while others never even got challenged.

So there we have it, for now. Tune in tomorrow and see if any long-lost twins resurface, if someone loses or regains their memory, or if a secret affair gets revealed. That and some cheesy organ music is about all that’s been missing from this.

UPDATE: Team Craddick says “Nuh uh!” to the Democrats’ list. They do not, however, release a list of their own, which is both a reversal from prior years as well as something that Burka described as a no-no for the ABCs. Who’s bluffing whom?

Today’s entrant: Dan Gattis.

The Georgetown Republican is the twelfth candidate challenging Speaker Tom Craddick, a Midland Republican seeking a fourth term as House leader.

Gattis was one of Craddick’s lieutenants during the 2007 session but has been uncommitted since the November election.

Via BOR. Hard to see how this changes the existing dynamic of many anti-Craddicks but no emerging consensus on an alternative. Really, at this point you’d prefer to see the number of Speaker candidates shrink, not expand. Who knows what’s going on? Burka has more.

As the start of the legislative session draws near, various entities gird for battle.

Much like corporations, Texas cities and counties plan to spend millions on lobbyists to push their agendas and protect their interests during the next legislative session.

When the lawmakers convene in Austin next month, the city of Houston and Harris County, for example, will have more than a dozen hired guns to help track bills that might affect their operations.

They are among a group of the state’s largest cities and counties that have hired at least 42 individual lobbyists or firms, costing about $3 million, records show. Officials say it is money well-spent, given that lawmakers could file more than 1,000 bills affecting local governments’ revenue, rules and residents.

“Cities are essentially regulated industries, just like companies,” said John Hrncir, governmental relations director in Austin, which hired 10 lobbyists for more than $800,000. “Virtually everything a city does … can be impacted by the state Legislature.”

Though officials in Dallas and Tarrant counties do not plan to hire outside lobbyists, Travis, Bexar and Harris counties have contracts worth more than $600,000 with at least six firms.

“Counties are administrative units of the state. There is nothing that a county can do without the approval of the Legislature,” said Deece Eckstein, intergovernmental relations coordinator for Travis County.

The list of issues local governments must monitor during the session is long, including bills that affect unions, land use, public safety, liability, utilities, transportation funding and control, taxes and criminal justice issues.

The city of Houston plans to spend roughly $500,000 this fiscal year on the state level, hiring Johnson & Johnson, of Austin, to manage nine lobbyists.

I’ve discussed this question before. I don’t see anything wrong with this practice, since there’s nobody in either chamber of the Legislature who is there specifically to represent a given city, or for the most part a given county. That differentiates it from the Congress, where each state has two Senators to represent its particular needs. Like it or not, lobbying is the most effective way for cities and counties to protect their interests. I wouldn’t call that optimal or even necessarily desirable, but it’s what we’ve got.

I’ve been saying that a statewide smoking ban would be on the legislative agenda next spring. Well, here it comes.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis , D-Houston , and state Rep. Myra Crownover, R-Denton, said they plan to file a bill in the legislative session beginning Jan. 13 that would ban smoking in indoor workplaces, including bars and restaurants. Though opponents say a ban would violate personal liberties and hurt their livelihoods, 24 states have passed a similar measure.

“You shouldn’t have to choose between your job and your health,” Crownover said.

Crownover and Ellis filed the same proposal in 2007; a watered-down version passed the House, and the Senate proposal stalled in committee. Since then, Dallas and Corpus Christi have strengthened smoke-free laws, and the Lance Armstrong Foundation has made a statewide ban its top priority in Texas.

Dallas joined cities including Austin, El Paso and Houston in passing bans that advocates for smoke-free workplaces consider comprehensive. Dallas’ expanded policy — which bans smoking in bars and other indoor workplaces but exempts outdoor patios and some existing tobacco shops — will go into effect April 10; Corpus Christi has a ban starting April 15.

With some major Texas cities becoming smoke-free, the time is right for a statewide measure, Ellis said. “All of those doomsday prophets have been proven wrong. There has not been a mass exodus of clubs and bars to the suburbs,” he said.

[…]

Though Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, has supported a statewide smoking ban — in an unusual move, he testified in favor of the proposal during the 2007 Senate committee hearing — Ellis said trying to pass his proposal will be an uphill battle.

One thing that could help him is that since the 2007 legislative session, a powerful ally — the Lance Armstrong Foundation — joined Smoke-Free Texas, a coalition that includes the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association.

Armstrong and his Austin-based foundation were instrumental in getting support for a $3 billion cancer research measure that Texas voters approved in 2007. And in 2008, the cyclist and cancer survivor supported the ban in Dallas by sending letters to City Council members and writing a newspaper column, said foundation President Doug Ulman.

Having Lance Armstrong on board certainly couldn’t hurt. I think the experience of the big cities that have passed their own bans will be more persuasive, but you can’t have too many things working in your favor with the Lege. I won’t predict success, because it’s always easier to stop a bill than to pass one, but I’d say Ellis and Crownover’s odds are better than they were in 2007.