7.9: Critical Thinking Questions

Question 1

The Texas Senate requires a supermajority (three-fifths of the members present) to bring a bill up for debate on the Senate floor. Proponents of this say it creates consensus – forcing bill authors to compromise, resulting in better legislation. Opponents call it anti- democratic, preventing the majority of the peoples’ elected senators from enacting policies their constituents want. What do you think?

Answer

A good answer to this question will acknowledge the traditional view of this requirement, unique to the Texas Senate, and might contrast it to the simple majority that is required to pass most bills in the Texas House of Representatives.

A good answer will explore the view – held by most senators – that the three-fifths rule keeps bills with only a narrow majority of senate support from passing, and makes it more difficult to pass controversial legislation.. A good answer will also explore the view held by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick that, in a democracy, a majority of elected officials chosen by the voters should be able to implement the policy choices that a majority of Texas voters presumably support.

An exceptional answer might mention that until 2015, a two-thirds vote (21 of 31 senators) was required to bring a bill up for debate. Three-fifths is 19 of 31 senators in a body the currently has exactly 19 Republican senators, so the modern rule does not necessarily require bipartisan support.

Question 2

The Texas Constitution allows the governor to veto bills, but lets the state legislature override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate. In fact, though, a governor's veto in Texas can almost never be overridden since he can veto most legislation after the conclusion of the legislative session. Some legislators have proposed amending the Texas Constitution to allow the legislature to call itself into a special session following a governor’s vetoes for the sole purpose of considering motions to override vetoes. Is this a good idea?

Answer

A good answer will discuss the peculiar timing of gubernatorial vetoes in Texas, which rules out any practical opportunity for the legislature to override it. A student may discuss the importance of checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches of state government, and the dangers of allowing any one person the power to nullify a law with no counterbalancing force. The student may also discuss the practical problems and the expense of such a special session, and the dilution of the power of an already weak executive under Texas’ plural executive state government design.

Question 3

While most state legislatures meet every year, Texas has a biennial legislature, which meets for only a few months every other year. Accordingly, Texas has a biennial budget – a two-year spending plan that begins a few months after the legislature adjourns and covers a period through nearly three years after its adoption. On the one hand, a 2-year budget forces more long-term thinking and stability than an annual budget. On the other hand, budget assumptions are based on guessing the state’s needs and available revenues far into the future. Who can predict the price of oil or the amount of expected sales tax revenue the state will collect three years from now? Should Texas continue with 2-year budgeting, or consider changing to an annual budget?

Answer

Possible avenues for a student to explore:

• It’s incredibly hard for legislators to accurately predict revenues and the need for services three or four years into the future, which is what is currently required when one considers the time it takes to gather data and draft a biennial budget.
• On the other hand, a biennial budget forces longer-term thinking, something that is sorely lacking from many governmental budgets, notably the federal government budget.

Question 4

In the 2021 session, Texas Legislators will be required to undertake redistricting, the decennial re-drawing of electoral districts for congressmen, state senators, state representatives and members of the State Board of Education. While the Texas Legislature prides itself on being less partisan than their counterparts in the U.S. Congress, redistricting is always a controversial and highly partisan process. Several states have tried to remove redistricting from the political process by reassigning it to a non-partisan redistricting commission. Should Texas consider this?

Answer

Redistricting is almost certainly the most partisan political activity the legislature does. There is little room for compromise when the primary objective is to maximize the partisan advantage of the majority party in upcoming elections.

A good answer to this would demonstrate a knowledge of what redistricting is, and the relative advantage or conflict of interest of having state legislators draw their own districts. A good answer may also include the inherent conflict of a “non-partisan” redistricting commission, the members of which would have to be selected by a person or group of persons that will certainly almost certainly have connections or allegiance to one of the political parties. An equal number of Republicans and Democrats might lead to an endless series of tie votes, and would further insure that other political parties (Libertarian, Green, etc.) would be unlikely to ever have a voice in the process.