Contact TEF  |  About TEF  
 Previous Updates

August 1
July 1
June 1
May 1
March 1
February 22
February 8
January 18
January 11
January 4
December 24
December 10
December 3
November 26
November 19
November 5
October 29
October 22
October 5
August 13
August 6
July 30
July 23
July 16
June 25 Senate Scorecard
June 25 House Scorecard
May 28
May 21
May 15
May 8
April 30
April 24
April 9
March 27
March 12
March 2
February 20
January 24
January 17
January 8
December 28
December 18
December 11
December 1
November 22

 

January 8, 2001

Eagle Eye on Austin - New Faces for a New Session

BALANCE OF POWER IN TEXAS STATE SENATE SHIFTS WITH NEW COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS – Newly minted Lieutenant Governor Bill Ratliff (R-Mt. Pleasant) shook up the Texas Senate this past Wednesday with this decision to split committee chairmanships evenly between Republicans and Democrats.  He explained his decision by stating, “The Senate is virtually 50-50, and it is only right that partisan balance among the chairmen be close to that (DMN 1-4-01).”  The move came as a surprise to many, and included a number of unexpected picks for committee chairmanships.  Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), President Pro-Tempore of the Senate during the 76th session, was tapped to head the powerful Finance Committee, and Mike Moncrief (D-Ft. Worth) was selected to chair the Health and Human Services Committee (recombined after being split during the 76th session into two separate committees).  Overall, committee chairmanships were split 6-6 between Republicans and Democrats.  Also notable is the new balance of Democrat and Republican members on the committees.  The 77th session will begin with 6 committees having Republicans majorities, 5 committees having Democrat majorities, and 1 tied committee.  With the overall membership being split 16-15 in favor of Republicans and with redistricting looming large, the 77th session will likely be played close to the vest by many legislators.

Below is a chart comparing the Senate committee structure from the 76th session, and the recently announced structure for the 77th session.  Each committee member has been assigned a rating reflecting his/her conservative voting pattern, and each committee has been assigned an overall rating based on a formula that places emphasis on the voting patterns of committee leadership.  Those committees whose “Conservative Power Rating” experienced a drop from the 76th to the 77th session can be expected to behave in a more liberal manner during the current session than during the previous session.  For example, Health and Human Services, the committee that typically deals with pro-life legislation, netted a sub-par score of 29.2%, and may bear special watching during the coming session.

 

(% Rating reflects Texas Eagle Forum rating of member’s voting record on specific issues.  100% would indicate total agreement with TEF’s issue preferences.)

76th Legislative Session 77th Legislative Session
Administration Administration
Chair: Chris Harris – R 70% Chair: David Cain – D 30%
V-Chair: Frank Madla – D 10% V-Chair: Steve Ogden – R 50%
Members: Rodney Ellis – D 0% Members: Buster Brown – R 50%
  Florence Shapiro – R 80%   Mike Moncrief – D 20%
  John Whitmire – D 10%   Judith Zaffirini – D 30%
Totals: R – 2  /  D –3 43.3% Totals: R – 2  /  D – 3 35.6%
Criminal Justice Criminal Justice
Chair: Ken Armbrister – D 50% Chair: Ken Armbrister – D 50%
V-Chair: Robert Duncan – R 50% V-Chair: John Whitmire – D 10%
Members: Mike Jackson – R 70% Members: Teel Bivins – R 50%
  Jane Nelson – R 50%   Mike Moncrief – D 20%
  Florence Shapiro – R 80%   Steve Ogden – R 50%
  Royce West – D 10%   Todd Staples – R* 80%
  John Whitmire – D 10%   Royce West – D 10%
Totals: R – 4  /  D – 3 47.3% Totals: R – 3  /  D – 4  39.1%
Economic Development Business and Commerce
Chair: David Sibley – R 60% Chair: David Sibley – R 60%
V-Chair: Ken Armbrister – D 50% V-Chair: Troy Fraser – R 60%
Members: John Carona – R 50% Members: John Carona – R 50%
  Troy Fraser – R 60%   Mike Jackson – R 70%
  Mike Jackson – R 70%   Eddie Lucio – D 40%
  Frank Madla – D 10%   Eliot Shapleigh – D 0%
  John Whitmire – D 10%   L. Van de Putte – D* 10%
Totals: R – 4  /  D – 3  49.1% Totals: R – 4  /  D – 3  48.2%
Education Education
Chair: Teel Bivins – R 50% Chair:
Teel Bivins – R
 50%
V-Chair: Gregory Luna – D 33% V-Chair: Judith Zaffirini –D 30%
Members: David Cain – D 30% Members: David Cain – D 30%
  Jane Nelson – R 50%   Jane Nelson – R 50%
  Steve Ogden – R 50%   Florence Shapiro – R 80%
  Bill Ratliff – R 56%   David Sibley – R 60%
  David Sibley – R 60%   Todd Staples – R* 80%
  Royce West – D 10%   Carlos Truan – D 20%
  Judith Zaffirini – D 30%   L. Van de Putte – D* 10%
Totals: R – 5  /  D – 4  42.5% Totals: R – 5  /  D – 4 45.4%
Finance Finance
Chair: Bill Ratliff – R 56% Chair: Rodney Ellis – D 0%
V-Chair: Carlos Truan – D 20% V-Chair: Chris Harris – R 70%
Members: G. Barrientos – D 10% Members: G. Barrientos – D 10%
  John Carona – R 50%   Robert Duncan – R 50%
  Robert Duncan – R 50%   Troy Fraser – R 60%
  Troy Fraser – R 60%   Tom Haywood – R 50%
  Mario Gallegos – D 0%   Mike Jackson – R 70%
  Jon Lindsay – R 60%   Jon Lindsay – R 60%
  Mike Moncrief – D 20%   Eddie Lucio – D 40%
  Steve Ogden – R 50%   Steve Ogden – R 50%
  Royce West – D 10%   Carlos Truan – D 20%
Totals: R – 6  /  D – 5 38.2%   John Whitmire – D 10%
        Judith Zaffirini – D 30%
      Totals: R – 7  /  D – 6 34.7%
Health Services Health and Human Services
Chair: Jane Nelson – R 50% Chair: Mike Moncrief – D 20%
V-Chair: Mike Moncrief – D 20% V-Chair: John Carona – R 50%
Members: Jon Lindsay – R 60% Members David Bernsen – D 10%
  Frank Madla – D 10%   Mario Gallegos – D 0%
  Drew Nixon – R 50%   Chris Harris – R 70%
Totals: R – 3  /  D – 2 40%   Frank Madla – D 10%
Human Services   Jane Nelson – R 50%
Chair: Judith Zaffirini – D 30%   Eliot Shapleigh – D 0%
V-Chair: John Carona – R 50%   David Sibley – R 60%
  David Bernsen – D 10% Totals: R – 4  /  D – 5 29.2%
  Mario Gellegos – D 0%      
  Chris Harris – R 70% Note:  Was formerly split into Health / Human Services
Totals: R – 2  /  D – 3 33.3%      
Intergovernmental Relations Intergovernmental Relations
Chair: Frank Madla – D 10% Chair: Frank Madla – D 10%
V-Chair: Jon Lindsay – R 60% V-Chair: Jon Lindsay – R 60%
Members: Rodney Ellis – D 0% Members: David Cain – D 30%
  Mike Moncrief – D 20%   Florence Shapiro – R 80%
  Drew Nixon – R 50%   Todd Staples – R 80%
Totals: R – 2  /  D – 3 25.5%   Royce West – D 10%
        John Whitmire - D 10%
      Totals: R – 3  /  D – 4 33.6%
Jurisprudence Jurisprudence
Chair: Rodney Ellis – D 0% Chair: Royce West – D 10%
V-Chair: Chris Harris – R 70% V-Chair: David Bernsen – D 10%
Members: Buster Brown – R 50% Members: Buster Brown – R 50%
  Gregory Luna – D 33%   Robert Duncan – R 50%
  Jeff Wentworth – R 40%   Rodney Ellis – D 0%
Totals: R – 3  /  D – 2 29.2%   Mike Jackson – R 70%
        Jeff Wentworth – R 40%
      Totals: R – 4  /  D – 3  24.5%
Natural Resources Natural Resources
Chair: Buster Brown – R 50% Chair: Buster Brown – R 50%
V-Chair: Ken Armbrister – D 50% V-Chair: Robert Duncan – R 50%
Members: G. Barrientos – D 10% Members: G. Barrientos – D 10%
  Teel Bivins – R 50%   David Bernsen – D 10%
  Tom Haywood – R 50%   Teel Bivins – R 50%
  Eddie Lucio – D 40%   Tom Haywood – R 50%
  Bill Ratliff – R 56%   Eddie Lucio – D 40%
Totals: R – 4  /  D – 3 46% Totals: R – 4  /  D – 3  41.8%
Nominations Nominations
Chair: Jeff Wentworth – R 40% Chair: Jane Nelson – R 50%
V-Chair: Mario Gallegos – D 0% V-Chair: L. Van de Putte – D* 10%
Members: G. Barrientos – D 10% Members: G. Barrientos – D 10%
  David Bernsen – D 10%   Mario Gallegos – D 0%
  Buster Brown – R 50%   Tom Haywood – R 50%
  Tom Haywood – R 50%   Jon Lindsay – R 60%
  Mike Jackson - R 70%   Jeff Wentworth – R 40%
Totals: R – 4  /  D – 3 31.8% Totals: R – 4  /  D – 3  34.5%
State Affairs State Affairs
Chair: Florence Shapiro – R 80% Chair: Florence Shapiro – R 80%
V-Chair: Eliot Shapleigh – D 0% V-Chair: Carlos Truan – D 20%
Members: David Bernsen - D 10% Members: Ken Armbrister – D 50%
  Buster Brown – R 50%   John Carona – R 50%
  David Cain – D 30%   Troy Fraser – R 60%
  Tom Haywood – R 50%   Mario Gallegos – D 0%
  Eddie Lucio – D 40%   Chris Harris – R 70%
  Drew Nixon – R 50%   Frank Madla – D 10%
  Jeff Wentworth – R 40%   Eliot Shapleigh – D 0%
Totals: R – 5  /  D – 4  45.3% Totals: R – 4  /  D – 5  46.1%
Redistricting Redistricting
Chair: Troy Fraser – R 60% Chair: Jeff Wentworth – R 40%
V-Chair: Mario Gallegos – D 0% V-Chair: Mike Jackson – R 70%
Members: G. Barrientos – D 10% Members: Ken Armbrister – D 50%
  Robert Duncan – R 50%   David Cain – D 30%
  Mike Jackson – R 70%   Robert Duncan – R 50%
  Eddie Lucio – D 40%   Rodney Ellis – D 0%
  Frank Madla – D 10%   Florence Shapiro - R 80%
  Jane Nelson – R 50%   Judith Zaffirini – D 30%
  Steve Ogden – R 50% Totals: R – 4  /  D – 4 45%
  Florence Shapiro – R 80%      
  Royce West – D 10%      
Total: R – 6  /  D – 5 40.6%      
*Indicates that percentage rating reflects voting record in the State House Notes:
  • Subcommittees were not considered in this survey.
  • The Committee on Veteran Affairs and Military Installations was not considered because it has been abolished.
  • Methodology used to compute percentage for “Totals”:  Percentage = (“Chair” % X 4) + (“V. Chair” % X 2) + (Sum of Member’s %) / 6 + (Sum of Members).  Greater weight was assigned to the Chair and Vice-Chair to reflect their importance in committee decision making.
  • Issues rated were taken from 76th Session record votes on SB 1539, HB 1275, SB 445, SN 717, SB 970, SJR 9, HB 3778 am. 2, HB 2202,   For additional information on this topic, please visit the following site: http://www.lonestarreport.org/LSRBullet.html

 

Brief Notes
SESSION TO KICK OFF ON TUESDAY - The 77th Session of the Texas Legislature will convene Tuesday, January 9, at 12:00 noon.  Texas Eagle Forum President Cathie Adams and Director of Communications Ryan Bangert will be there along with leaders from other pro-family groups to assure that the concerns of Texas families are given voice.

DOMA LOBBYING DAY TO BE HELD FEBRUARY 14 IN AUSTIN – The Texas Eagle Forum will co-host a seminar and lobbying effort on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday, February 14, in Austin.  Sponsors include Texas Eagle Forum, Free Market Foundation, Texas Justice Foundation, Texas Christian Coalition, Texas Concerned Women for America, American Family Association of Texas and the Coalition for Traditional Marriage.  Tickets to the seminar are $25 and include lunch with lobbying immediately following.  Please send your check to TEF, P.O. Box 795354, Dallas, TX 75379 today. For more information, email ryanbangert@texaseagle.org or cathieadams@texaseagle.org.

 

Commentary – Why We Need a Defense of Marriage Act, Part I
              The privilege of being a “pro-family” group carries with it a number of responsibilities, some of them welcome and some difficult to fulfill.  Ironically, some seemingly controversial issues are, in reality, tremendously enjoyable and rewarding to address.  The defense of the traditional definition of marriage is certainly one of these types of responsibilities.  One would think that such a thing as the definition of marriage would need no defense at all, since throughout Western history marriage has evoked the image of a hopefully blissful union between one man and one woman, with the concurrent image of a family complete with children and, ultimately, generations of descendants branching out in myriad directions.  This image of marriage, however, is under savage ideological and legal assault in this, our postmodern era.

              The reality of homosexual political power has driven an agenda of “gay-rights,” the sole objective of which is to fully legitimize the homosexual lifestyle by acquiring for its practitioners all the legal and contractual rights which have historically been reserved for the traditional, heterosexual married couple.  The language of this effort is replete with calls for “equal protection” and “non-discrimination,” language intentionally reminiscent of that used by the civil rights leaders during the 1960’s.  The poignancy of the images produced by the use of this language effectively combats the language of reason, history, and tradition in the minds and hearts of a public trained in the ways of postmodern, relativistic morality.  Tolerance is the watchword of the day, and any law or belief that would enforce “someone else’s” vision of right and wrong must be done away with.  Indeed, those who promote such exclusionary visions must be “desensitized” and “educated” until they come to “accept” the validity of “alternative” lifestyles.  The natural outcome of this mental process is the unconditional support of the creation of an institution called same-sex “marriage.”

            The thought of codifying same-sex “marriage” rubs many Americans the wrong way, although they may feel guilty for actually admitting as much.  Being pro-family, however, means absolutely nothing if the word “family” has no definite, unchangeable meaning assigned to it.  For those who believe that a family consists of a nucleus of one man and one woman committed to each other for life along with their children, the thought of embracing the homosexual agenda of same-sex “marriage” is unthinkable.  Such people see talk of “equal-rights” and nondiscrimination for what it really is, a smoke-screen for an amoral, destructive, radical agenda aimed at destroying the foundation of Western society – the family.  These people know that marriage is something worth fighting for, because they know that the easiest way to destroy an institution, an ideal, is to define it so broadly that it loses the ability to be definitively identified.

              For these reasons and more, the Texas Eagle Forum is proud to be supporting the passage of a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) for the state of Texas.  Over the next few weeks, a three-part defense of DOMA will be propounded in this very column.  The defense will consist of the following components:  (a)  a philosophical defense of traditional marriage, (b)  an explanation of the need for DOMA from a legal perspective, and (c)  action steps that you can take to see that the definition of marriage is preserved for future generations of Texans.  To the vast majority of readers who already feel strongly that traditional marriage must be preserved, I pray that this series will serve to encourage you and provide additional support for your position.  For those who may not be sympathetic to the traditional definition of marriage, I pray that you will be challenged by what you read, and join the ranks of those who believe the fight for traditional marriage is, ultimately, a fight for the very heart and soul of America.   – RLB

Related Links:
Why We Need a Defense of Marriage Act, Part II
Why We Need a Defense of Marriage Act, Part III

 

Please contact us if you would like to request information, or place a friend on our e-mail list.

Phone: 972-250-0734
Fax: 972-380-2853
e-mail: ryanbangert@texaseagle.org
web: www.texaseagle.org

 

© Copyright Texas Eagle Forum. All rights reserved.