Texas legislature | TEXAS ICONOCLAST blog

Texas Monthly is busily hyping their customary end-of-session best/worst legislator list, which has led others, such as the Texas Tribune, to kick off the almost as old guess the best/worst list drinking game.

Unsurprisingly, the Tribune’s group of political “insiders” thought that the “best” list would consist of mostly Republicans who suggested they should violate their promise to voters and raise taxes, and Democrats who accomplished….well…….I’ll get back to you on that one. (Except in the case of Senfronia Thompson, who did win the “most argumentative” title.)

On everyone’s “worst” list was Sen. Dan Patrick who, despite my disagreement with him on several issues, was successful in getting many of his agenda items passed into law (pending Perry’s signature of course).

This raises two important questions:

1. What constitutes a “best” legislator?

2. If it’s just a list of people who forward bills on issues with which the State’s political media happen to agree, does the list even matter?

To me a good legislator is one who is successful passing his or her agenda, even if I don’t agree. A poor legislator is one who forwards a plethora of bad (or poorly thought out) legislation that doesn’t stand a chance of passing given the current political environment.

Supporters of Rep. Thompson will be quick to point out her puppy mill bill as evidence of her “success.” However, if you remember, that bill was hotly contested to the surprise of many. As a matter of fact, in its original form it was probably un-signable by Perry. Changes in the Senate have probably made it palatable, if only just.

I would suggest that a list detailing the most effective legislators might be useful, but a list outlining Lege members who share policy priorities with the state’s political media just doesn’t add anything to the incomplete discussion we’ve already had.

It’s hard to see how the legislature can balance the budget without revenue from expanded gambling, meaning that gambling is quite likely to pass the Texas Legislature this year. Yesterday, Paul Burka posted the spin from one prominent gambling lobbyist. But not all gambling interests are the same, and frequently they end up fighting each other the hardest. Here’s the (slightly edited) perspective of another prominent gambling lobbyist who represents a different interest:

Paul Burka was told that by the lobbyist that Chairman Hamilton was going to move a bill today that included all different gambling interests (they referred to it as the whole enchilada bill). However, the vote counts came back devestatingly low for the proposal to add slot machines at bingo halls and casinos all over the state. But the numbers were much much better for slots at tracks and Indian reservations. Hamilton wanted to move a bill, so he just decided – on his own – to do this. Everyone was caught very much by surprise, as we thought the bill was dead [Friday]. The speaker’s office is as surprised as anyone.

We were scrambling to figure out what he passed out, as we thought the bill was toast, because the original bill had all this other stuff in it that we knew he couldn’t get the votes for. Despite that, we tried to help him pass it but the vote count wasn’t even close a majority.

The lobbyist I talked to claims that Hamilton’s current bill is only a few votes short of the 100 necessary to pass a gambling bill. That might be why the jilted side is trying to implicate Straus – to try and make it tougher for the bill to pass.

Paul Burka’s closing line was snappy, “Things seldom happen in the Capitol by chance. Even gambling.” According to the other side, he was fooled by randomness.

Is this even relevant?

Fooled by randomness in the gambling bill?