We got some great emails. Here's our top 3 faves:
The cookies go to this tipster:
I would say that SB 12, by Harris, is the one that has the least to do with anything. It asks for us to put new lights, better signs, and better Tulips for our public parks and lands. A valid idea, but one that is more for the local Gardener's Club meeting than the Texas legislature.
Also mentioned:
Why would you need a constitutional amendment to eleminate a county treasurer??
and..
Rep. Keel re-filed his "death penalty cases don't need no stinking lawyers" bill that got roundly rejected in the regular session.
Thanks! And enjoy the cookies!
Harris' bill sounds like the Senate blocker bill that gets put atop the calendar every session to require the two-thirds approval to suspend the rules to bring a bill up. Standard, quirky Senate procedure, I think.
I LOVE the tulips. The more tulips, the better.
Actually, I'm glad to see S.B. 12, the blocker. It was Dewhurst's decision not to have a blocker in the second special session on redistricting in 2003 that caused the Senate D's to bolt to Albuquerque, the Senate R's to get silly with sanctions, and "The Daily Show" to have more fodder. Blocker bill good.
Harris seems like a flower kind of guy to me too. In the early 80s, telling my age, blocker bill was the importation of white camilla plants.(probably sic). Then there was the Rose Garden on the Capitol grounds a few years later.
1) Ever heard of facilitating the Regular Order of Business rule? This is something that the PinkDome-types alway support in Special Sessions. Change of heart?
2)Uh, maybe because that is the only legal way to abolish a county treasurer.
3) Virtually everyone who practices criminal law agrees that the current system is a closed shop scheme that provides dealth penalty defendants a limited counsel pool and poor representation. Also, as I recall, it was not "roundly rejected." It passed the House (I think unanimously) and the Senate but got hung up in conference.
Why? Because our legislators like having eighteen gazillion, eight hundred forty three zillion, nine hundred seventy two pillion, one hundred thrity-nine dillion and four amendments to our state constitution.
I'll never forget for a ratification election in the mid 90's we had like 6 to 8 proposed amendments to the state constitution along the lines of
1. A proposal to eliminate the position of county surveyor in Blankity County.
2. A proposal to eliminate the position of county surveyor in Clankity County.
3. A proposal to eliminate the position of county surveyor in Adios County.
4. A proposal to eliminate the position of county surveyor in Mofo County.
5. A proposal to eliminate the position of county surveyor in Dust County.
6. A proposal to eliminate the position of county surveyor in Dirt County.
7. A proposal to allow the elimination of the position of county surveyor in any county by vote of the commissioner's court (or vote of the people in the county or something like that).
My thought was, WHAT THE F***! Just put the last one up and then let Blankity, Clankity, Adios, Mofo, Dust and Dirt Counties use the new provision when it passes. Don't make the rest of us have to vote on this.
Why not have an amendment allowing a county to eliminate a county treasurer itself given certain safeguards? Or better yet, why not fold in county surveyor, county superintendent, county treasurer, etc into one amendment allowing for elimination of positions no longer necessary so long as certain procedures are followed? I guess such a provision makes too much sense and hence has no hope of ever crossing the collective minds of our Lege.
Per the Texas Constitution, each county has a county treasurer. To abolish that office in any county, there has to be a constitutional amendment.