Is this a good idea? When this came up two years ago, I was opposed to the amendment. My reason was that Texas has a constitutionally weak governor, and this proposal would further weaken the governor. Rick Perry, however, has changed the nature of the governor’s office. His lengthy tenure has allowed him to appoint all of the officials who oversee the executive agencies. He is a very strong governor, at least in his ability to control the actions of the executive branch through what amounts to a de facto cabinet form of government. This amendment is needed to restore a balance of power. For example, the Legislature, which controls the purse strings, can pass a statute making Texas eligible for stimulus funds for unemployment insurance, but the governor can veto the statute. But the argument is probably moot. Even if the amendment passes the House, Dewhurst, who is totally aligned with Perry these days, can prevent it from coming up for a vote in the Senate. Of course, the Legislature can always protect itself by acting promptly on major bills so that they reach the governor’s desk in time for the Legislature to override a veto while still in session. Yeah, sure. The Legislature act promptly? Forget it.I am not sure what the point of this change would be. At any rate, it is all academic because I can't see it actually passing. I wonder what Rick and Kay would think about weakening the office they are running for in 2010. Probably unanimity against the change, if I had to guess.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Weakening the Texas Governor's veto power...
Paul Burka has flip flopped and is supporting a change to the way Texas does business that would weaken the Governor's veto power (link). Excerpt follows: