A Better Playbook For Texas Democrats

Texas House Democrats are getting rickrolled this session, and it’s their fault.

The Best Revenge Democrats Have?

When a bipartisan majority elected Speaker Dustin Burrows, one of the most conservative members, they argued he would preserve a tradition of bipartisan collaboration and independence. They contended Rep. David Cook, R-Mansfield, who had the backing of a majority of the Republican caucus and backing by numerous right-wing activists, would lead a far right takeover of the chamber. Burrows, however flawed, was their best option, even against the candidate from their party, Rep. Ana-Maria Rodríguez Ramos of Richardson.

In the three way race for speaker, she got 23 votes, all from Democrats. After she was eliminated, 44 Democrats voted for Burrows in the second round, including House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu. Nine Democrats ultimately registered as present not voting, a way of saying “nope.” Rodríguez Ramos and Rep. Richard Raymond, a contrarian, voted for Cook.

But instead of bipartisan Burrows, they got a backstabbing Burrows, who has been a lap dog for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Gov. Greg Abbott.

The first blow came when the House rules package included some big changes. Gone was the longstanding practice of appointing members of the minority party to chairmanships. Instead, they only serve as vice chairs. The rules also reformed how the parliamentarian, who interprets rules and offers advice to the speaker, operates. This change allows the speaker to dismiss the ability for the minority party to kill bills on procedural grounds.

These were victories for the far right of the Republican Party who campaigned on banning Democratic chairmanships in their primary races.

House leadership wasn’t finished in upending precedent. Abbott, Patrick and Burrows aggressively pushed for a school voucher bill giving taxpayer dollars for students to attend private schools. Democrats and rural Republicans previously rejected voucher legislation. But the governor spent millions in the 2024 primaries and runoffs to defeat incumbent opponents of vouchers, which finally gave him a majority. Even previously anti-voucher Republicans signed on. Among them was Rep. Keith Bell, who even became a co-author. On the floor, an additional four voted to pass the bill. Only two Republicans, Rep. Gary VanDeaver and former Speaker Dade Phelan, joined all Democrats in voting against it.

Burrows promised Democrats opportunities to pass priorities. Yet he hasn’t delivered.

This could’ve been avoided. Democrats had leverage from day one with Rodríguez Ramos. She wasn’t going to win, but a unified caucus could have forced major negotiations with a fractured Republican caucus.

Rodríguez Ramos is among a handful of unabashed progressives in the body who have no problem battling Republicans and their own leadership. She’s joined by Reps. Gina Hinojosa of Austin and John Bryant, an octogenarian representing Dallas who served in the chamber in the 1970s before being elected to Congress. They were among the seven who voted present not voting. (Rep. Charlene Ward Johnson switched her vote from PNV to Burrows.)

The caucus could learn from their principled stances.

Traditional tactics for killing or stalling bills include parliamentary tactics like points of order, which challenge a bill’s merit based on rules established by the body at the beginning of the session.

They can also kill non-controversial bills on the local and consent calendar, established by the committee of the same name. It requires only five signatures. (Currently insurgent Republicans plan on killing every bill on that calendar arguing no Republican priority has passed.)

They could break quorum like in 2021. But House rules created after the historic quorum break withhold office budgets, which would negatively impact staff, and impose steep fines.

The current tactic of stalling the passage of state constitutional amendments by denying the required 100-vote threshold is clever. But it is a punishment for a situation they created.

There are so many other ways to force a slow bleed.

Some More Strategies For Democrats

The hearing on vouchers in the Public Education committee in March lasted 22 hours because of the many witnesses and Democratic members, including Bryant and Hinojosa, relentlessly asking tough questions.

While school vouchers are far more contentious than bills regulating pig farms or some of the other less controversial proposals. But Democrats should treat all bills as if they are contentious as vouchers. Get 50 or more people to sign up to talk about the importance of the bill renaming a highway for a fallen officer or about barber licensing. Even as public testimony is limited to two minutes or less as mandated by the committee chair, members should drag each testimony out with questions.

On the floor, the options are practically endless.

Members can honor anybody and everybody through resolutions. These are filed at the request of constituents honoring anything. They could be retirements, passing the SAT or the anniversary of grandma’s and grandpa’s divorce.  They are easy to file and an honor. Signed by the Speaker, Lieutenant Governor and Governor, they are also a great honor. And they are easy to file.

Members can shout out to visitors. They could be individuals or a gathering. Talk to the chamber about each visitor at length. After all, recognizing visitors is a nod to constituents.

When it’s time for legislating, one longtime observer of the legislature noted the legendary former Rep. Sissy Farenthold required all bills be read in full on the floor. Some bills are more than 30 pages. That takes up time.

When it comes time to vote, Democrats can require numerous ways to drag out the process. Record vote strict enforcement, for instance, requires all members be present and at their desk. Their names are called one by one. There are plenty of other tactics rarely used to slow down business or kill bills. They should do it strategically by choosing at random instead of every bill.

The third reading on a bill is a formality. It doesn’t mean they can’t ask questions or file amendments. They should use the few minutes allotted to them to make sure they really understand a bill doing even the simplest of things.

Democrats have that leverage this late in the session to at least make their colleagues lose sleep. They can use the process in their favor.

But will they?