I haven’t gotten around to writing my last entry in this blog because every time I start to write it I can’t seem to make up my mind about what to say. However, this time I am going to just begin and see where I end up.

The last weeks of session were a combination of lighthearted fun and serious work. I practically lived in my office during the last two weeks of session to make sure everything was in order, graduation certificates were sent out, the Sine Die party was planned, and the office was ready for the next staff among other things.

We managed to pass one of our authored bills, House Bill 2851, relating to the deferral of certain surcharge payments for military personnel deployed outside of the continental United States.

The legislature as a whole passed 5,526 of the 10,315 filed bills and resolutions with a total of 24 vetoes as of June 22, 2011.

As expected, the legislature entered into a special session. Interestingly enough Gov. Perry called the special session immediately following Sine Die which has some interesting implications. Generally a special session won’t be called until around the second week of July, this ensures that the legislature can not override any vetoes by the Governor because they are not in session. However, due to the fact that a special session was called during the Governor’s approval and veto period, the legislature is able to override any vetoes with a 2/3 majority (if the Governor allows it to be on the schedule…).

Sine Die was fun. My office held a Christmas themed party with decorations, music, and holiday treats. Our hallway was themed with bad or silly bills however other hallways did everything from decades to countries and all of the staff got to mingle and celebrate the end of a very strenuous and eventful session.

The last day of session consists of corrections and resolutions. The majority of the day in session is therefore usually spent congratulating and recognizing staff. My office staff was recognized, my TLIP class was recognized, and I was recognized individually as well. HR 2722 is about me! (GPOY)

Leaving Austin was both a good and a bad thing. I enjoyed my time in Austin. I am a total nerd and I really enjoyed watching the goings on of the legislature while being a part of it as well. I networked, made connections, and made friends. I got to see thousands of teachers up in arms about education funding, the only Julliard bound senior in Texas perform in the Rotunda, teach a group of school kids about the history of the capitol and the echo in the rotunda, as well as a hundred other things that made my experience great.

I love learning and this was definitely a learning experience. Some days all I wanted to do was go home and get some sleep and others I was the energizer bunny. I learned hands-on how the system works not just in a formal and theoretical textbook manner but also in a contextual and tangible way. I filed bills, researched bills, used underground tunnels and staff-only entrances that made me feel like a secret agent, wrote constituent correspondence, met amazing and dedicated advocates, and so much more. It’s pretty difficult to put it all down on this page.

Granted, some days were slow and boring, sometimes the boss was in a bad mood, and every once and a while I didn’t want to go into work. However, most days I was just excited that a nerdy artsy only-political-involvement-was-as-a-school-newspaper-photographer self got to be involved in such an intense legislative session.

So, what do I do now?

Well, for one I kinda got a job because of my internship. Seems that my social butterfly networking skills paid off and though I will technically still be an intern by another name, it’s still pretty badass. Other than that I will continue to assist the Honorable Mallory Caraway’s staff with technology and newsletter production through the summer from home, take the GRE, attend Lamar University as a senior Graphic Design major in the Fall, apply to grad schools, and hopefully following my graduation be accepted and attend an awesome grad program. I don’t know where I’ll end up or why I’m on the path that I am but at least I know that I’m headed somewhere.

I’ve learned that I don’t have anything to prove anymore. My family is proud of me and so should I be.

always,
davilin.marie

I am going to be a nerd for a minute. Let me rephrase. I am going to be a giant nerd for a minute. I grew up in the age of pokemon. I still have pokemon cards at home…in a box…with pokemon stickers all over it. I also had pokemon cards in my fourth grade time capsule. I wasn’t even the biggest fan…I was just another kid in the era of pocket monsters.

It should come as no surprise then that the 150 members of the Texas House has inspired me to switch out the names of the original 150 pokemon with the names of Texas Representatives in the Poke-rap.

Represent! lqtm

Prepare to be morbidly curious!

Legislator Rap (inspired by the Poke-rap)

I want to be the best
There ever was
To beat all the rest
Yeah, that’s my cause

Elkins, Deshotel, Naishtat, Miller
Veasey, Ritter, Frullo, Picket
Simpson, Jackson, Driver, Geren
Phillips, Villarreal, Paxton, Bonnen

(Catch ‘em, catch ‘em, gotta catch ‘em all - Represent!)

I’ll search across the land
Look far and wide
Release from my hand
The power that’s inside

Vo, Patrick, Nash, Giddings
Isaac, Gallego, Woolley, Martinez
Morrison, Fletcher, Anchia, Smithee
King, Rodriguez, Castro, Walle

(Catch ‘em, catch ‘em, gotta catch ‘em all -
Gotta catch ‘em all - Represent!)

Zerwas, Pena, Miller, Oliveira
Gonzales, Raymond, Miles, Strama
Gooden, Taylor, Guillen, Shelton
Weber, Smith, Gonzalez, Solomons

(Gotta catch ‘em all - gotta catch ‘em all
Gotta catch ‘em all - gotta catch ‘em all)
(Gotta catch ‘em all - Represent!)

Kolkhorst, Price, Perry, Huberty
Reynolds, Mallory Caraway, King, White
Davis, Callegari, Craddick, Schwertner
Button, Christian, Garza, Lavender

At least one hundred and fifty
Or more to see
To be a Texas Legislator
Is my destiny

Aliseda, Dutton, Kleinschmidt, Margo
Keffer, Hunter, Eiland, Farias
Burnam, Parker, Otto, Anderson
Riddle, Munoz, Burkett, Hamilton

Madden, McClendon, King, Lewis
Davis, Sheffield, Torres, Harless
Quintanilla, Pitts, Orr, Carter
Martinez Fischer, Murphy, Smith, Eissler

(Gotta catch ‘em all - gotta catch ‘em all
Gotta catch ‘em all - gotta catch ‘em all)

Alvarado, Anderson, Flynn, Branch
Beck, Bohac, Coleman, (Represent!)
Thompson, Workman, Legler, Creighton
Laubenberg, Larson, Menendez, Berman

At least one hundred and fifty
Or more to see
To be a Texas Legislator
Is my destiny

Kuempel, Landtroop, Truitt, Aycock
Brown, Hardcastle, Hartnett, Lozano
Hochberg, Marquez, Turner
Howard, Gutierrez, Hancock, Zedler

Gonzalez, Davis, Hernandez Luna, Dukes
Hilderbran, Taylor, Sheets, Hopson
Crownover, Farrar, Darby, Chisum
Scott, Cook, Cain (We’re almost home!)

(Gotta catch ‘em all - gotta catch ‘em all
Gotta catch ‘em all - gotta catch ‘em all)
(Gotta catch ‘em all - Represent!)

Harper-Brown, Johnson
Lyne, Howard, Allen
Hughes, Alonzo
Straus, Lucio
That’s all, folks!

-Yes, they are all in there. Count them. Though I did not try to match up each legislator with their respective pokemon that would definitely be a fun project. Anyone who would like to do so please send it my way. I will enjoy your efforts immensely.

always,
davilin.marie

The notion of representation is a complex concept consisting of a relationship in which designated agents are responsive to the needs of the people they represent. In order to secure re-election legislators must approach their representational role in a manner agreeable to their constituent base. While fluctuating in meaning, this constituency often molds the representational roles of legislators into four main dynamics: policy responsiveness, service responsiveness, communicative responsiveness, and allocational responsiveness.

Legislatures are often expected to be the “most representational” branch of government and therefore undergo the pressures of the job in a variety of ways. The representational role can best be described as the way the individual lawmaker views his or her policy obligation to the constituency. These views fall into two main categories of policy responsiveness, that of the “delegate” and “trustee” theories. These opposing theories have plagued legislators since the beginnings of representative democracies however; most legislators consider themselves as sharing a dual orientation role influenced by both theories. The delegate theory holds that a legislator must take the same position as the majority of their constituents whether or not the individual legislator shares the same position. In contrast, the trustee theory contends that the role of a legislator is to make the decision he or she thinks is right regardless of constituent opinion. This model asserts that constituent opinion is to be considered however, it is not the determining factor in legislative voting. Although the representation role dilemma is a common problem it rarely presents itself with cut and dry clarity. The reasoning for this is simple: due to the fact that the majority of bills are of little importance to a constituency a legislator is often free to vote as he or she chooses, in cases of controversy a legislator is often in line with the constituency base of his district (a legislator is “of the district” after all), and while constituents hold an opinion on only about 10 percent of legislation they claim a clear position on nearly 1 percent of all legislation. Given that most people know very little about their legislatures most legislators lean towards a trustee orientation of representation. This is not to assume that legislators are averse to the wants of their constituents but instead place a great importance on voter opinion and doing a good job of representing the policy views of their constituency.

Helping individual constituents with a problem, in its simplest form, “service responsiveness” entails little more than providing information. Also known as “casework”, constituent services puts legislators in contact with state agencies on a regular basis and most often this entails the more involved process of acting as an intermediary and advocate between individuals and various bureaucracies to redress grievances. It is important to good legislators that their constituents know that their representatives are responsive and that they care enough to help those individuals they represent. This aspect of legislative duties comprises a largess of the work done by lawmakers, and as a survey of the Connecticut and New York legislatures shows, is the “most important task” they perform.

Similarly, another aspect of representation is “communicative responsiveness.” This domain entails the ways in which legislators seek to stay in touch with their constituents. Due to the strained calendars of legislators the ability to remain completely available to constituents is an artful maneuver. Legislators make use of both new and old technologies to provide updates and information about the legislative process and state of government to their home constituencies. Especially during sessions when legislators are mostly unavailable to attend events within the district the task of providing information is an important one which makes use of e-mail, blogging, newsletters, and other forms of media to remain prescient to district needs. It is notable to mention that this activity often has a strong bearing upon legislator evaluations by constituents and can assist with ensuring the electability of incumbents.

Finally, the representational component of “allocational responsiveness” which involves politics to get the most resources for your district or state and is often a difficult endeavor due to the conservative budgets passed in most states. The funds established by legislators range from public works projects and military or other governmental installations to disaster relief money and providing aid to local school districts. Due to their nature, these issues rest heavily upon constituent opinions and district needs.

The roles legislators choose directly influence their decision-making and often reflect their re-election agendas. For example, Democrats and Republicans do well with like minded groups while they fair less favorable among opposing groups. Legislators in safe seats were most likely to vote inline with their ideological positions while legislators in competitive districts tend to temper their voting habits in order to survive electorally. Overall, these forces often have the ability to constrain or mandate what legislators and in turn legislatures are capable of accomplishing. The legislators’ representational roles are constantly fluctuating in order to align with their constituent base and the needs of the district and state as policy positions change. Generally, legislators are well liked by their constituent bases otherwise they would not see re-election most often because the general public knows little about their legislature and how it functions. While disheartening it isn’t entirely without merit due to the lack of substantial information through mainstream media and the extreme lack of legislators taking advantage of emerging technologies to ensure an informed constituency. Overall, state legislatures are more trusted than federal legislatures and a big part of that is the greater availability of state legislators to their constituents compared to federal legislators.

While complex in theory the application of representation is quite simple and entails the degree to which legislators are responsive to the needs of their constituency. A culmination of policy, service, communication, and allocational responsiveness allows legislators to both excel in representational roles and provides the incentive of re-election if fulfilled in a manner agreeable to their constituency.

The legislative process involves many factors that are both formal and contextual. These factors will be examined in the following essay as they relate to the process of passing legislation, the affect of time on the process, as well as how variation in power granted to leadership affects this process in the states.

Variations in the legislative process exist from state to state. While most states follow similar guidelines there are a few differences developed over time which make each one their own distinct body. One way in which legislatures differ across states is the number of bills that are both proposed and passed in a legislative session. This figure differs from state to state because of a number of variables including limits on the number of bills introduced like in Colorado, the ability for citizens to introduce legislation like in Massachusetts, or depend on approval by a standing committee before being printed like in Idaho. The proportion of bills passed as opposed to the number of legislation introduced varies across states due to four main variables. These variables include the number of local bills filed which often comprises a large amount of legislative workload. This workload is comprised of municipal, county and local jurisdiction business and in states such as Alabama make up about 50 percent of the legislative workload. Also affecting the amount of legislation passed is the ways in which appropriations bills are handled by the state. Some states the budget is handled in a single bill while in others there may be upwards of 100 appropriations bills thus states handling multiple pieces of legislation for a single budget will often pass higher numbers of bills. Party control also has the ability to control this variable as well. Whereas when chambers are divided within a legislature less bills are likely to be passed while in singularly dominated legislatures pass more bills though they tend to be based upon the agenda of the majority. Finally, the last implication upon the proportion of bills passed is when states make use of a “carryover provision.” This provision allows bills awaiting committee hearings in the second chamber from the last session to return to committee in the current session without having to be re-filed. Thus, states with carryover provisions most often have higher passage rates because the same bills do not have to be reintroduced. While passage rates are only one aspect of the legislative process, which has evolved over time to include more complex and lengthy bills, it brings to notice the three main tracks legislation follows within the legislative process.

Legislation follows three main tracks within the legislative process. The three paths impact whether legislation reaches passage and include bills that die, bills that fly, and bills that crawl. Bills that die are obviously bills that do not get passed. These bills are often left pending in committees and never see the floor, essentially killing the bill. In contrast, bills that fly often pass the legislature with little to no resistance. These bills often hold no controversy and instead act as “housekeeping” for previously passed legislation. However, then comes the more significant collection of bills which crawl through the legislative process. These crawlers usually involve important issues and represent significant policy shifts seeking to change the status quo. Consisting of controversial issues these bills go through many different changes via amendments and substitutions before they are passed or killed. One such slowly moving bill is the budget bill and the way in which it is assembled differs from state to state though aligns exactly in one way: it is the only piece of legislation that requires passage by the end of their active session. How often the budget is passed, biennially or annually, whether it is compiled into a single bill or multiple all affect the rate at which the budget is passed. All of these factors depend upon what actions are taken during the legislative process and its many steps.

The process itself is deliberately intended to follow a slow passage however, each state differs in the way they treat each step of the process. While each state handles them in slightly different ways the main path follows a set of readings, committees, and votes before gaining passage. Initially the legislation is first drafted before it can be filed, introduced and read for a first time. The initially reading of bills consists mainly of the identifying bill number, sponsor, and title. Titles of legislation contain more than the object of the bill but rather include both the general synopsis and intent in order to provide relevant identifying information. After this first reading the bill is sent to a conference committee. This state is inherently critical because the actions of the committee will determine whether the bill ever reaches the floor. Within committee a bill will receive an extensive examination accompanied by public testimony and is in fact the only stage of the process in which nonlegislators can speak publically on proposed legislation. After the bill receives its hearing the committee may decide upon different recommendations and will determine the success or failure of a bill. Pending the committees decision on a bill, once passed on favorably, will incur a second reading and issuance of a committee report before being eligible for a third reading. Upon the third reading of bills legislators may then discuss and debate the bill before it is called for a vote. In the majority of states all that is required for passage of a bill is a simple majority of members present and voting. However, some states require a “real majority” of the entire membership even if members are absent or not voting. Various stalling mechanisms are often employed in this stage of the process through manipulation of quorums, filibusters, and reconsideration votes. If a bill manages to pass the floor, the legislation then gets referred to the second chamber and will follow the same basic outline. Once legislation passes the second chamber it often differs from the original format, when this happens the original chamber will either vote to accept the changes or not to accept the changes. If the original chamber does not accept the changes made to the legislation it then makes its way to a conference committee generally comprised of about three to five legislators from each chamber to craft a compromise bill acceptable to both chambers. The conference report must then be voted favorable by both chambers or it will die. Finally, once a bill is passed by both chambers, the bill is sent to the governor. Here, the governor may sign the measure into law or veto it. Though not easy, a vetoed bill may still make it into law if an extraordinary majority of the legislature in each chamber votes to override the veto. With most state legislatures meeting for only a few months each year to pass legislation there is a relatively small timeframe in which to complete the process.

Indeed, time constraints are a major concern for legislators and to combat the legislative logjam at the end of session many states establish deadlines for each step of the process. Such states as North Dakota and South Dakota place strict limits on the number of days the legislature can meet while other states have the flexibility of instituting special sessions which allow them more time in which to pass important legislation such as the budget and redistricting. Deadlines are often given for bill introductions, committee reports, and the transmittal of bills from chamber to chamber. However, deadlines tend to be flexible for certain committees such as budget, state affairs, and rules and leadership committees. Due to this structure, legislative time tends to differ from ordinary time. Generally speaking the beginning of sessions tends to be quite leisurely with little action occurring on the floor however, as the session progress legislators are often bridled with a variety of tasks dividing up their time from committee hearings, floor sessions, caucus meetings, and other legislative duties. The end of the session is typically hectic with bills moving quickly from chamber to chamber or being held as political maneuvers. Last ditch efforts to resurrect or pass bills in a variety of ways including attaching bills to legislation seeing easy passage. This act is done in a variety of ways which seeks to either pass controversial legislation by tacking it onto another less controversial bill, attaching insignificant legislation to bills seeking easy passage, or through providing an array of amendments to an existing bill. Ultimately, the finally days or hours of a session focus upon the passage of an often controversial “going home bill” after whose passage legislators and affiliates will return to their jobs and families. This bill is the key bill that needs to be passed before Sine Die (adjournment without a set day to return) and is most often the budget.

During the final stages of the legislative process action begins to center around those in power positions who now affect the fate of legislation within the lawmaking body. Within each stage of the process these groups have the ability to influence those in power from the start. Among the contextual factors influencing those in power are partisanship and party leadership, legislative staff, constituency concerns, and lobbyists. The importance of the variables differs across states and shifts with the political context at any given moment. Parties create legislative agendas that serve as a frame of reference for decision making. The best party leaders come out of political situations containing a largess of polarity between the ideologies of one party and another and control over chambers remains balanced. When these two conditions are in place the impact of party agenda upon legislation is substantial. Legislators, especially those in the majority party, will often vote directly along party lines in order to prioritize their legislative agenda and maximize the party’s future electoral chances in order to maintain a majority standing. When supermajorities exist the focus of decision making resides less upon leadership and party caucuses and more toward committees. For example, once a bill reaches committee the Chair is the most pivotal person in decision making. Most states allow the Chair the control over the hearing process at this point and therefore the Chair can influence whether a bill is heard, leaves committee, or dies waiting for a vote. Ultimately, individual legislators must decide how to vote on individual bills however, the ability to vote resides in the hands of those capable of killing legislation in committees or on the floor with a majority opposed. Further influence upon legislators rests in the hands of their constituent base. Especially on significant matters, the constituency is often a strong determinant of vote. A legislators vote can determine whether or not reelection is possible and therefore lawmakers will often vote for what matters to their primary constituency. Since most votes a lawmaker casts are not of importance to their constituency they are not apt to become campaign fodder except on issues of great controversy and importance. Therefore many factors influence a legislators voting hand including religious beliefs, position of political backers, or personal relationships with various peoples. Those in power seats have the ability to sway voting, kill legislation, or ensure passage of a bill and therefore influence the viability of the legislature.

The formal dynamics of the legislature is an involved process consisting of many diverse entities. These dynamics impact the process of passing legislation, the affect of time on the process, as well as how variation in power granted to leadership affects this process in the states. While variation in the process exists from state to state they follow similar guidelines with a few differences developed over time which makes each one their own distinct body. Even with the critical nature of rules, procedures, and calendars, the formal process remains the same; context, however, is always changing.

Legislative professionalization is typically measured three dimensions: member salary, time devoted to legislative activities, and staff support as it relates to the capacity of both legislators and legislatures to generate and digest information in the policymaking process. Thus, the implications of legislative time demands condition the impact of legislative pay on member behavior. These dimensions, I argue, entail different effects for state legislatures and legislators as professionalization levels vary from state to state.

Running from the 1960’s to the 1980’s the state legislative professionalization movement has affected state legislatures on many avenues. It is believed that an increase in professionalization in legislatures decreases membership turnover, increases constituent contact, legislative efficiency rises and an inclination to reform increases as they are better able to mediate policy disputes. However, the variation in levels of professionalism is broad among states. As of 2003, California ranked as the state closest to the U.S. Congress in professionalization and New Hampshire ranked as the state most unlike the U.S. Congress. The reason for this disparity is tied to salary and benefits, time demands, as well as staff and facilities. Overall, state legislative salaries are not impressive and are most often below the state’s median household income. While per diems and other fringe benefits make being a legislator easier it is notable that taking time away from their regular occupations is expensive. Therefore the amount paid to those pursuing legislative service influences who serves and for how long they serve. Unlike the U.S. Congress, state legislatures operate under two potential time limitations whereas Congress meets annually for as many days as it wishes. How often they meet and how long those meetings last varies considerably and reflects the level of professionalization carried across states. For example, Utah, which ranks 46/50 on the scale of professionalized states, is considered part-time and met for only 45 days in 2007. In contrast, California, which ranks 1/50 on the scale of professionalized states, is considered full-time and whose members of the Assembly met for 121 days over 272 calendar days while members of the California Senate met for 130 days. Arguably, state lawmakers in professional bodies would then report having spent more time on the job than their peers in less-professional bodies. Incidentally the more professionalized a legislative body is the more resources are available in ways of staff and facilities. Just as levels of income and time demands vary so does the amount of staff and amenities available across states. In a few states, legislators have little to no support staff and work from a desk on the floor while other legislators like those in California, New York, and Texas operate with staff and facilities comparable to those of the U.S. Congress. Increased staff resources correlates then to increased professionalization in legislatures.

As a unit, professionalization has the effect of making state legislatures more equal partners with the executive branch in policymaking. Professionalized state legislatures are able to devote more time to legislative service and have the staff and facilities to assist in their endeavors. This indicates that legislatures with higher paid legislators tend to have members with longer tenures which creates a more experienced body naturally inclined to attract better-qualified affiliates. A well-qualified and experienced body of legislators with increased time demands directly correlates to higher salaries due to legislators being unable to pursue other employment opportunities. These increased time demands provide legislatures with more time for policy making development and deliberation leading to the willingness to adopt increasingly complex and technical regulatory policies, income tax systems, stronger environmental policies, and more novel policies as they are better able to examine and understand the complexities of the legislature process. Through increased pay and time demands legislatures become more reliant on support staff and resources who assist in creating a more serious policymaking body better equipped to compete with the executive branch.

Creating a competitive and experienced policymaking body requires that its legislators are capable of performing their legislative and representative functions. Due to the effect of professionalization these two functions differ according to differences in pay, time demands, and support staff much in the same way these three dimensions affect the legislature as a whole. The implications of professionalization on legislators through salary and benefits means increased incentives to serve which leads to longer tenure with the increased ability to focus on legislative activities. However, due to the time demands of service there is a reduced opportunity for legislators to pursue other employment and an increased need for higher salaries to compensate for lost income. Increased time demands also have the capacity to increased legislative skill levels producing greater experienced and knowledgeable lawmakers in need of larger support staff and resources capable of increasing their influence on the policymaking process. Increased staff resources also have the effect of enhancing reelection prospects which leads to longer tenured and better experienced lawmaking bodies. Professionalization allows legislators to have more contact with their constituents, give more attention to their concerns, and are more representative of their districts views than less-professional legislatures. This increased constituent contact leads to increased trust in our legislators in their abilities to represent the beliefs of their constituency and secures the electability of professional legislators.

Analyzing legislative professionalization through the dimensions of member salary, time demands, and staff resources makes it easy to see how the various state legislatures compare to the executive lawmaking body of the United States. These implications suggest that the movement of the 1960’s to professionalize state legislatures has succeeded in creating diverse and regionally distinct legislative bodies based upon the representation of each state’s constituent base. Lastly, without increasing the demands of other occupations, financial hardships, or overwhelming workloads professionalization has the effect of forming lawmaking bodies able to devote themselves to legislative service and have the staff and facilities capable of providing support.

I will be posting my three essays that functioned as my exam for the legislative processes class. All three essays were based off the the book State Legislatures Today: Politics Under the Domes by Peverill Squire and Gary Moncrief (two really nifty names).

The essays aren’t fantastic but after much intern internal debate decided to post them anyway.

Enjoy…or hide from the wall of text.

always,
davilin.marie

House Bill 15 “Sonogram” — Signed by Governor 19 May 2011, Effective 1 September 2011
House Bill 12 “Sanctuary Cities” — On Senate Intent Calendar
Senate Bill 18 “Eminent Domain” — Signed by Governor 19 May 2011, Effective 1 September 2011
Senate Bill 14 “Voter ID” — Sent to Governor
Senate Joint Resolution 1 “Federal Balanced Budget” — Died in House Committee
House Concurrent Resolution 18 “Federal Balanced Budget” — Sent to Governor

always,
davilin.marie

Not just a cheesy line from a horror flick, the 82nd legislative session will come to an end on May 30, 2011, in seven days. This does not however mean that the legislature is finished. If the state cannot pass a budget by Sine Die, the legislature will be forced into special session/s until a budget is passed. With currently no funding for education the inevitability of a special session is high…as in I will be damn surprised if there is not a special session.

House Deadlines
Tuesday, May 24, 2011: Last day for House to consider 2nd reading SBs/SJRs on Daily or Supplemental Calendar
Wednesday, May 25, 2011: Las day for House to consider local and consent SBs on 2nd and 3rd reading and ALL 3rd reading SBs/SJRs on Supplemental calendar
Thursday, May 26, 2011: Before midnight — Senate amendments must be distributed to the House
Friday, May 27, 2011: Last day for House to consider Senate Amendments (concur or go to conference)
Saturday, May 28, 2011: Before midnight — House copies of ALL CCRs must be distributed
Sunday, May 29, 2011: Last day for House to adopt CCRs
Monday, May 30, 2011: Sine Die Corrections only in House and Senate

So, what have we accomplished so far?

House of Representatives
Introduced
Bills: 3,865
Concurrent Resolutions: 154
Joint Resolutions: 154
Resolutions: 2,345

Passed
Bills: 304
Concurrent Resolutions: 71
Joint Resolutions: 0
Resolutions: 1,845

Senate
Introduced
Bills: 1,930
Concurrent Resolutions: 57
Joint Resolutions: 53
Resolutions: 1,124

Passed
Bills: 305
Concurrent Resolutions: 35
Joint Resolutions: 2
Resolutions: 1,122

Total House and Senate Bills
Introduced: 5,795
Passed: 609

Total
Introduced: 9,682
Passed: 3,684

Bills Vetoed: 0

Bills signed by the Governor: 180
Bills vetoed by the Governor: 0
Bills filed without the Governor’s signature: 2

For more statistics and reports you can visit the Texas Legislature Online Website

About those special sessions. It is just about guaranteed that the legislature will meet back in Austin some time around the second week in July to discuss the state budget, redistricting, and education funding. While all of this can be tackled in one special session it is more likely that Gov. Perry will call a seperate session for each issue (not necessarily limited to the ones I listed).

This is pretty much how the legislature works. The reasoning for this is mostly due to the time constraints placed on the legislature by the Texas constitution wherein the legislature only meets for a total of 140 days every odd numbered year. Not only are they constrained to this timeframe but the initial 60-days of session legislators are only allowed to pass bills delegated by the Governor as “emergency items” in his/her State of the State address. This is nearly half of the entire session during which we passed none of the Governor’s emergency items in this session.

Furthermore, all other bills must have a vote to suspend the rules agreed upon at the start of the session in order to take up any legislation. Of the legislation filed, which amounts to over 9,000 bills this session, only about 20 percent makes it to the floor in either chamber where it often faces lengthy scrutiny and delays. In combination with the massive budget shortfall for the next two fiscal years, redistricting, and public education funding to be carved out it’s not hard to see that 140 days is not nearly enough time to cover all of your bases.

Finally, one cannot forget the solid majority held by Republicans in both chambers which constantly reminds us that not everything that legislators wish to accomplish will happen in one session. This session, more than most, time constraints, partisan conflicts, and constitutional requirements made for one hell of a session to watch even as we stood biting our nails and shaking our heads.

always,
davilin.marie