The Texan Podcast - Interview: State Rep. Tony Tinderholt on Bid for Texas House Speaker

Episode Date: November 10, 2022

Want to support reporting on Texas politics that doesn’t include the spin? Subscribe at https://thetexan.news/subscribe/  This week, senior reporter Hayden Sparks interviewed Rep. Tony Tinderholt (R-Arlington) to discuss his recently announced campaign to be the next speaker of the Texas House of Representatives.  “We’re having a speaker’s vote, and it’s gonna be out in the open, and it’s gonna be on the very first day of session,” said Tinderholt. “If people vote for me, I’m gonna be pretty darn happy. If people don’t vote for me, I’m still gonna be happy, and I’m gonna hug them and handshake them and say, ‘Let’s get to work.’” The Texan extended an invitation to current Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) for a video interview. Enjoy this content? Be sure to subscribe for similar interviews and The Texan’s Weekly Roundup — a podcast released every Friday that brings you the latest news in Texas politics.  

My name is Hayden Sparks. I'm a senior reporter here at The Texan. Today I spoke with State Representative Tony Tenderholt, who filed to run for Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives. We spoke about his hopes for the upcoming legislative session, Republican legislative priorities, and the culture of the Texas legislature. I hope you enjoy this interview, and don't forget to go to thetexan.news and subscribe today for coverage on issues that matter to everyday Texans. Thanks.

Representative Tenderholt, thank you for joining us today. You just got back from filing to run for the most powerful seat in the Texas House, and I'm interested in what spurred your candidacy days before the election. Why are you running for Speaker of the Texas House? Let me start off by kind of addressing when people say that that's a powerful position. I'm a firm believer that I think that that position is a servant to 149 other members. So as a state rep, you are a representative of about 200,000 people roughly. So I look at the voters here, state reps here, and the speaker should be a servant to those 150 members as well as the 200,000-ish people that they represent. So I don't look at it as a powerful position. I look at it as a more administrative position that

administers the house rules, refers bills, appoints committee chairs, does a lot of that kind of stuff. But I don't think that the speaker should be dictating which bills move and don't and what happens in regards to bills. There's 149 members out there that vote on these things. There's committees that push them through. And so that's one of the reasons that I'm running. I think that we need to decrease the control that the speaker has over things.

The other thing is, last session was pretty frustrating. We did pass some good stuff, but a lot of stuff was left on the table. A lot of really good conservative Republican things were left on the table and they didn't even get a vote and they were held up purposely. And so I'm a Republican. I work for Republican voters. And the Republican platform is created for us to come to Austin and execute that platform. And so I'm running because I think it's important that we go to Austin and we do the will of the voters.

I think that the propositions that were done passed overwhelmingly. And I think those are going to be important to Republican voters. But you have to remember, I just said a moment ago, the speaker doesn't get to dictate that. But I think what the speaker does do is sets the stage for all the members, all of them, Democrats and Republicans, set the stage for everyone to represent their districts. And sadly, I think that's difficult right now. We're hearing, I've talked to a lot of members over the past couple of weeks, and I'm hearing that members are told if they vote on the rule to ban Democrat chairman, that they'll be punished. I can't confirm that. I didn't talk to the speaker about that.

But I want members in the Texas House to come represent their district the way that they think that it should be representative. I don't want a unilateral decision maker that decides everything that happens. And so I just want to come there and let 149 members represent their districts, no matter how it is. And right now, I don't feel like that can be done. And you're referencing the servant leadership aspect of the position of the speaker. And what's unique about this one is it's chosen among the members of the House, unlike the lieutenant governor, which is elected statewide. And a lot of people may be unfamiliar with the process of selecting the speaker. Can you speak a little bit to that process? And would it be too cynical to

say that there's a lot of horse trading that goes into selecting that position? How much of it is based on policy and merit? You know, it's a really interesting aspect of being in the Texas House is how the speaker is chosen because lieutenant governor is chosen by the people of Texas. The speaker is chosen by the members of the Texas House. And traditionally what happens is a speaker candidate will go garner up 76 votes. But a few sessions ago, I was one of the five members that helped draft and create a rule in the Republican caucus that we would go into caucus, we would do a vote, and whoever came out with the largest number, the majority, the entire caucus would vote for. The interesting thing about that is neither Bonnen nor Phelan have followed that rule. Phelan, Speaker Phelan, and let me be clear too, I think Phelan is a kind individual. I don't dislike him. I can differentiate

your friendships and politics and the work we do. And so when I talk about the things that I don't like that he does, it doesn't mean that I don't like or respect him. I think he's a good man. I think he's a great dad. My wife is friends with his wife, but this is the work that we have to do. And so I feel what traditionally happens is that they come out and do that. And Phelan came out the day after election last session, or last cycle, last November cycle, and he announced that he had the votes. Well, the rules specific, we're supposed to meet as a caucus and he announced that he had the votes. Well, the rules specific, we're supposed to meet as a caucus and vote. We never did the vote. The vote didn't happen.

And he said that he had enough votes to become the speaker. And look, to be honest with you, I expect that he's probably, very probably going to do that again right after the elections. And so my answer to that is that don't count all your numbers until we actually are able to talk to all the members and discuss what members want out of a speaker, what they need out of a speaker. I'm going to make sure that I talk to everyone. And I'm sure that there's going to be some people that are frustrated or disappointed or angry, and some are already pretty happy, to be honest. But I wouldn't so much say horse trading. I would say that those phone calls happen. And here's the sad truth. A lot of people will vote for a speaker candidate because they fear not being included and not being able to pass bills and fear being punished in one way or another. And as I've talked to members, I hear members saying

that they will be punished. I have not been told that. And so I want to create the environment where the speaker is a servant and there's really no power involved in the speakership. So what you're going to see from me is I'm going to reach out to the members and if they don't want to talk to me, I'm going to high five them, hug them and get to work with them after the vote's over. The members that are willing to talk to me, I'm going to be honest. I'm going to share my ideas and my thoughts. And my hope is that we get enough people that believe in what we're doing and that we can win this. We've already got people on Twitter saying that our House members really being snarky and disrespectful,

and that's not how colleagues work with one another. If those individuals are going to vote for the Speaker, that's okay. I'm okay with that. There should be no punishment. People shouldn't be afraid to exercise their right to vote for the speaker candidate that they want. So I'm not sure if I quite answered your question. I know that I – Well, it helps people understand better what goes into electing the speaker because the general public doesn't get a say, a direct say in who's elected speaker.

And so I think that is helpful for people. Well, I'll tell you, I think the thing that the people that are not super, super involved in politics don't understand is that for over a decade, probably 15 or more years, speaker candidates go get all or most of the Democrats and then get a handful of Republicans to elect them as a Republican speaker. And then they have to cater to Democrats. And I want to reiterate that I respect all of my colleagues. Um, politically we're different. Uh, but on a personal scale, I respect even the Democrats that I work with. And some of them are absolutely amazing people, but we have work to do in Austin and we can disagree on those things. And what's traditionally happened is, and it happened just this last time, when he announced that he had the speaker candidacy won the day after election, he had to go over and he got

Democrats to assist him. I'm calling Republicans. I'm going to call Republican members to talk to them and try to encourage them to live and work in a free environment, free of any punishment and stress. And I want them to be able to represent their districts no matter how they agree or disagree with me. You've focused your candidacy on a proposed rule that was raised during the rules discussion last session to only allow members of the majority party to serve in committee chairmanships. And it was overwhelmingly defeated when it was raised for a vote. But I want our viewers to understand your position in terms of Republican priorities and why only Republicans should be committee chairs when the Republicans are in the majority, which they are expected to win again next week.

Let me be clear. There are certain laws in place that say that a speaker candidate cannot state exactly what they will do, who they will hire, who they will appoint. So that's not what I'm saying today. And that's not at all what I'm saying with my candidacy. What I am saying is that last session, the rule came up and I voted for it. And that was before 81% of Republican primary voters told Texas that they don't want Democrat chairs. So as a House member, if and when that rule comes up, as a House member, I'm not talking about being a speaker,

as a House member, I'm saying I will vote for that. There will be no fear mongering with me. I'm voting for it. They can punish me. They can do whatever they want, whether I'm the speaker or not. I, as a House member, would vote for that. But again, as a speaker candidate, I can't come out and tell you what I would or would not do once I become speaker. Of course. And without forecasting what you personally would do as speaker, I do want to get into the substance of that debate on the rule itself. As a House member, you voted for it. And there were's one of the most conservative members in the House. And he feared that it would make the Texas legislature function more like DC. And I wonder what your stance on that is and how much credence you give that concern. You know, I hear that a lot. And I think if we talk to Briscoe today, he might be in a little bit different place. I can't confirm

whether he would or wouldn't. And I respect members. I respect the members when they disagree with me. But I'll tell you that the Democrats left last session. Where did they go? They got in an airplane with beer. They went to Washington, D.C. Their policies here in Texas are no different than the policies in Washington, D.C. I know a lot of those members, and I like them. But their policies are horrific for Texas and for America. They're going to tell you that they never wanted to defund the police. I disagree. They're going to tell you that they want everyone to be able to vote. Well, they want to be able to do things during voting cycles

that you and I don't think are okay. Several of them would have, that when they left, they collected per diem from taxpayers in the state of Texas of $221 a day, and they were not in Austin at their job doing their work. I look at that personally as theft from taxpayers. And look, laws are simple. When you steal over $2,500, it can be considered a felony in the state of Texas. And they were not held accountable. So my short answer is that the Democrats in Texas are not different than the ones in Washington, D.C. We just know them better. We work with them every day and they're kind and they're great people. But the policies that they push are no different

than the ones in Washington, D.C. And so I think that argument, I'm not going to speak for Representative Kaine, but I think he could be in a different place. I think that that might be something you want to ask him. But I think we can operate in the Texas House with any of the rules that are passed or not passed in a respectful, functional way, free of fear, free of intimidation, and free of just representing your district. The way that speakers have said in the past, but they haven't really meant. And you mentioned some of the policies that Democrats support. You proposed... I mean, look at the border. Yeah, and you proposed a resolution. And we can talk about the border too, but I want to reference quickly, you proposed a resolution that would have imposed consequences and uh would have at least allowed the house to act on the the quorum break and so that there were consequences in place and and i

don't believe the house admin committee acted on that um but i wanted to get your comment briefly on um on what you think should be done in the future to prevent lawmakers from just picking up and leaving when the policy debate isn't going their direction? Well, I mean, that speaks to the integrity of doing your job. We're not paid much in the state of Texas to be legislators. We do it because we feel an obligation to the people to service. But we're paid $600 a month after taxes. Probably the average person is $200 or $300 is my guess. But when we're getting per diem to be in Austin, in the Capitol, on the House floor, voting, debating, sometimes fighting, sometimes hugging, that's our place of duty. I spent 21 years in the military. Can you imagine what would

have happened if I just decided that I was not going to go to my place of duty? I got per diem when I would do temporary duty in other places like Panama, Iraq. I would go to places like that. I wouldn't have my job anymore. They would consider that theft. I'd be fired if I didn't show up to my place of business. And that's exactly what they did. And so the resolution that I put forth was to hold them accountable. And it wasn't to hold Democrats accountable. It was to hold anybody current and future that decided that because they didn't like the debate that was happening, because they thought they might lose, that they'll leave their place of business, leave their duty, and go somewhere else, Washington, D.C., and try to fight on their own in a place that

they can't get the work of Texas done in Washington, D.C. capital. We do work for Texans in the Texas house. And so my resolution was intended to hold them and any Republican in the future that might do it. It was a nonpartisan. And I think we should still probably do something to put something in place so that if Republicans or Democrats or any independent that were to get elected, that if they don't like what's going on in the Texas House floor, that they're held accountable if they decide to leave so that they don't have to vote. I mean, it was really that simple. And every day for 20 minutes, sometimes an hour, I had to fight the parliamentarians. I fought them every day to try to get them to enforce the rules the way that I thought the rules should be enforced.

And look, that's another tough fight that people don't realize. The inside baseball, the scoop on Texas House floor is the parliamentarians have their thoughts and ideas of how to interpret the rules. We have our thoughts and ideas and there's precedent. I don't always agree. I sometimes think that partisan politics and protecting the Speaker, and look, Speakers, I'm sure that Speakers in the past have probably told parliamentarians what to do and not to do. I don't know what Speaker Phelan has done or not done, but I know that I disagreed with those parliamentarians every day of special session

when I wanted to hold those Democrats accountable. And it's disappointing. But as a member, you have to be honorable and respectful and you got to respect others' thoughts and ideas. And the end of the story is that once the parliamentarians speak and the speaker gavels down on something, that's the decision that's made and you have to respect it. And I really wish we could have done something to hold them accountable and hold us and anyone else accountable in the future. It just wasn't successful. And I'm thinking that we're probably going to bring up as a member, I'll bring something up. If I end up becoming the speaker, I'm sure that someone else will bring similar resolutions forward. I've asked you to rehash last session a lot, but I do want to look forward to next session as well.

And Republican delegates at the state convention this summer prioritized not only the Democratic committee chair issue and focusing that on Republicans, but they also prioritized what proponents characterize as gender affirming care and what opponents would say is child abuse and mutilation, but all comes down to gender and sex change procedures and therapies on children, and Republicans are very adamant about prohibiting that. What do you think the odds are of getting a bill like that across the finish line with the current leadership? And what is your belief in terms of where that should be listed on the priorities in the next session? So as far as Republican priorities go, that's pretty high on the list. And interestingly, it's pretty high on the list of a lot of Republican elected officials inside that building.

I'm convinced that the Senate will pass that bill and several other priorities over to the Texas House early in session. I'm convinced that the current speaker does not like that bill. I'm also convinced that that, along with many other priorities, will die either in committee, in calendars, and will never see the light of day. I think it comes down to that simple principle I mentioned a minute ago. State representatives that are elected officials in the Capitol don't set the priorities. We come to Austin to execute those, to try our hardest to get those passed as clean as possible. Sadly, I think that people are influenced through fear and intimidation to do or not do things, to kill bills, to water bills down, to not hear bills. On the floor when a bill comes, sometimes there's things that happen on the House floor where

there's members putting pressure on them. Sometimes leadership does it to try to kill and water down bills. So sadly, I think there's going to be a lot of bills this next session that Republicans are really excited about that may go nowhere. I mean, look, we're even hearing the current speaker talk about clawing back some pro-life legislation that we passed last session. I think that... Are you referring to adding exceptions to the Human Life Protection Act? I am. I think we'll see the leadership try to add some regulations to gun ownership.

You know, I think in 60 or, what are we, 50, 60 days from session? I can't remember, but we're getting pretty close and we're going to find out pretty quick. I think as I talk to members, one of the things that I'm telling them is, you know, you're going to have to make the decision at some point who you're going to vote for. What you're going to get from me is a hug, a handshake, and let's get on with business, whether you vote for me or don't vote for me as Speaker. Sadly, I think the current leadership team doesn't have that same philosophy. I think some of the members I've recently talked to are pretty fearful of voting for any rules that the Speaker doesn't support and not voting for the current Speaker.

You've talked a lot about the culture of the House and wanting to create a situation where the speaker is a servant and where members are free to propose ideas and they don't fear reprisal or any type of ramifications for adhering to their beliefs. You're a combat veteran and you've never shied away from a fight. How far are you willing to take this candidacy? Are you prepared to fight it out, figuratively speaking, on the House floor on the first day of session? What is your plan for your candidacy?

So I mentioned earlier that I was one of the members that wrote the rule, the caucus rule, that's not been followed since we wrote it four or six years ago. It's not even, it's not been followed. Current speaker announced that he won the speakership the day after the November elections. We still hadn't had our caucus vote. We're doing this on the house floor,

period. We're going to have a vote on the house floor and members are going to be able to have a choice. the House floor and members are going to be able to have a choice. The choice is, do you want freedom to do what your district asks you to do? Do you want fear and intimidation or do you want the freedom to do the job you were elected to do? Do you want someone that's in charge of you or do you want someone that serves you? Do you want someone that helps you get reelected or do you want someone that pushes you to do their agenda that's harmful to you in a primary election? So the short answer is we're having a speaker's vote and it's going to be out in the open and it's going to be on the very first day of session. And I'm going to pledge again.

If people vote for me, I'm going to be pretty darn happy. If people don't vote for me, I'm still going to be happy and I'm going to hug them and handshake them and say, let's get to work. We're still colleagues. I pledge that I'm going to be respectful. I'm going to be truthful about things that I like and dislike in the current speaker, but I'm going to remain respectful, but that vote will happen 100% on the House floor, no matter what intimidation level they push on me. Look, they're already tweeting mean tweets. Literally, I mean, I'm staying above the fray to not get down into the weeds and start being disrespectful with them, but some of the

tweets are actually childish and disrespectful from House members, and I'm disappointed. And I'm sure some of our peers are looking at those. Some of them are liking them, and I think they should reconsider. Even if they're not going to vote for me, don't let yourself get suckered into looking unprofessional. We're held to a different standard. And that's what I want for Texas. And that's what I want for the Texas House. Well said. Well, Representative Tenderholt, thank you for taking time out of your morning to be with us. Our viewers, I'm sure, appreciate you. I know, appreciate you. Thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you for your time. I appreciate you.

Thank you to everyone for listening. If you enjoy our show, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you want more enjoy our show, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you want more of our stories, subscribe to The Texan at thetexan.news. Follow us on social media for the latest in Texas politics and send any questions for our team to our mailbag by DMing us on Twitter or shooting an email to editor at thetexan.news. We are funded entirely by readers and listeners like you. So thank you again for your support. Tune in next week for another episode of our weekly roundup. God bless you and God bless Texas.