The Texan Podcast - To The Victors Go The Spoils: Smoke Filled Room Ep.12

Episode Date: January 20, 2025

In the latest episode of Smoke Filled Room, Senior Editor McKenzie DiLullo and Senior Reporter Brad Johnson break down the top players, behind-the-scenes deals, and political drama that shaped the contest for the most powerful position in the Texas House.

Yes. Oh, my gosh. Try managing 150, 149 different people. Yeah. Right? Like, that's just, from the outset, next to impossible to do. You're going to have people pissed off at you, which is why, when you become speaker, you put a time crunch on your political tenure.

Because you're going to become hated, regardless of who you are. It's just going to happen. For some people, it's worth it. Others, it's not. I can't understand why anybody would want to do that job. But, you know, it's— Watch 20 years, Brad's the speaker. No way.

No way. I'd give you permission to take me back out and shoot me if I do that. Got it. Noted. Well, howdy folks, and welcome back to Smoke Filled Room episode 12. I don't know how that math works because we've not been doing this podcast for a full year. Regardless, it's been a big week. And this is an absolutely timed recording schedule for us. Are you ready to talk about the speaker tricks?

There's not much to it. I think we should just stop at this point. Okay, that sounds good. Folks, thanks for listening. We'll catch you next month. Bradley, you walked into my office yesterday and you looked exhausted. You look a little more rested today. Do you feel that to be the case?

Yeah, enough. Enough to talk about this i guess yeah um yeah it was it was exhausting but it was fun exhilarating it was fun being back in the building and seeing everybody talking to people yeah that's my favorite part about the job so um everyone seemed obviously the surrounding context aside of people being at each other's throats, everyone seemed pretty excited to be back after what was a grueling 88th legislature. Speaker's race, specifically for this week, rank in terms of other big legislative moments that have happened at the Capitol, like the impeachment or expulsion of a member or special sessions? Like, where do you rank this in terms of big moments? This was fun. I had fun with this. I wouldn't say I had fun on impeachment day or in the trial.

I enjoyed the property tax one too on the last day of regular session last time. But you were so fed up with the constant having to rewrite what the policies were. You were so fed up with the property tax thing by midway through. Well, yeah, I mean, I guess I would say, I mean, at some point I was fed up with the speaker's race.

You just get to a point where you feel like you're writing and saying the same things over and over again. But this topic, along with property taxes, is something I enjoy more than, you know, the other remarkable moments we've had in the legislature. But, yeah, this was fun. Yeah. Well, should we just jump into it let's do it okay so over the weekend and if folks we also recorded our weekly roundup we published that this will be far more in depth than our weekly roundup that went out on friday but anything that we don't touch on today is probably just because we talked about in the weekly roundup um let's talk through the weekend before, the days leading up to the speaker

race. So it was on, the vote itself was on Tuesday, which was the first day of the legislative session. So in the three, four, five days before then, what rumors were circulating, what plot points happened that led up to the vote? Well, I believe the Friday before, last Friday, as we record this, was this, wasn't that the UT game? Yes. Yes. Because that was, so there had been for the first couple weeks of this. Yes, because you were up there on the Friday.

The first couple weeks of this year had been fairly quiet, especially compared to December, right? There's all kinds of stuff being said. At least the beginning of December. Yes. But it the beginning of December. Yes. But it had been pretty quiet. The camps were generally set the way they were going to be set with, you know, a gettable group of members in the middle and then the Democratic aspect of this, of them being fractured.

Some of those members not being gettable. Not being gettable at all, as we found out, yeah. But then other ones being, you know, kind of shocked. Not huge shocks, but surprises enough, right? And the big one was Richard Raymond coming out on Friday after the UT game and announcing his support for David Cook. Which, if you would have looked at the Democratic coalition and thought, okay, which members might be more susceptible to going, you know, being amenable to a Cook candidacy over at Burroughs, I put Raymond in that camp.

I put him, yeah, at the top. Totally. But it still was super notable because we've been waiting for a Democrat to cross over. Because the question was, could Cook get any Democrats? And he needed them because he had reached his cap with the Republicans. Yes. And even if he had some more room to gain, he wasn't going to hit 76 with just Republicans.

It's just not how it is right now. You can try and force the issue as much as you want, but until you get more changeover, it's not going to happen. And even then, the question is, what's the changeover? There were all of the 30 freshmen that came in, most of which were Republicans, but they're from, a lot of them are from the right flank of the party, but there are some from all different stripes of the party, right? So it's kind of a crapshoot when you're in these primaries, and the turnover you get, if you're trying to move the ball to the point where you can elect a speaker entirely with the Republican caucus, you have to get 76 members who are all on the same page about, first of all, a lot of things,

but mainly the direction of the Republican Party as the majority party in the state. And that's just not the case right now we have these two there's more factions than this but it's broadly two sides fighting over control of the republican party um and you know that's i don't say that just as like the the apparatus that is the republican party of texas but the broadly speaking, the Republican environment in Texas, there's a fight over it right now, and we've talked about it extensively. It's playing out in the speaker's race. And so back to Cook, he needed Democrats, and that was plainly obvious. that we should elect with, we as that side, Republican activists, should elect a wholly Republican coalition speaker. That was the dream.

That was the dream, yep. And for them, and just not, it's not in the cards because of the math. Because enough Republicans were on the borough side to you know negate that possibility and part of it is this is not a the main aspect of it but part of the reason that there's a that break is because you have to get uh you have to pass some things with a super majority so you have to deal with democrats some to some degree right a supermajority. So you have to deal with Democrats some, to some degree, right? And that supermajority is required for, like, constitutional amendments. Yes, yes. And so it's – you have to deal with them at some point.

So that plays in, right? If you lock them out of everything entirely, which neither candidate was talking about, you know, they're not going to play ball on anything. Why would they, right? That same would happen if it was that the rules were reversed. So Cook was having to get Democrats. Burroughs had some Democrats, needed more to get across the line. So Raymond came over. Another thing about Raymond, I mentioned this in the weekly roundup, but I should mention it here. He is in one of the Trump districts, the districts that Trump won in the general election.

We'll get to that a little bit, too, when we talk about the vote counts at the final, of which Democrats were voting for Cook. So that was a notable aspect of this. Raymond came out, and his pitch was basically, we need to change. The House needs to change the way it operates, and that's what the Reform Group has been trying to do for the entire time they've been formed. That was his case.

He made his commitment, and that kind of gave Cook a lot of momentum, or at least it looked like momentum. Going into the weekend, I kept hearing rumors about other Democrats that were about to flip. And they were more than rumors. There were discussions going on. Never happened, at least publicly. And so by the time we get to Monday, Tuesday, what momentum it looks like Cook had, it kind of lost. And so— It seemed like we were on the precipice of a cliff of potential Democrats who would kind of head over to Cook's side, and we just didn't see that. So it was like, okay, it stalled out.

Right. Let's see what happens. Right. And Cook had been trying to appeal to them with various things. The big one was enrollment-based public education funding over attendance-based. And, you know, that's something Democrats have been wanting for a long time. And to have a Republican speaker candidate at least willing to consider it, that would be – that was huge for them. Yeah.

Obviously not enough to get them on board. You know, he also, that statement made a couple Republicans, Hillary Hicklin was one, Brian Harrison another, that came out firing against that proposal. So that would have, that caused some rankling on that side of things. It would have been a lift regardless of, if they still consider that, that would be difficult to do. But other things he was looking at were increasing office budgets. The reason for that would have been, at least from a practical side, is that if we're no longer doing Democratic chairmanships, this is a way to preserve the budget, the size of or close to the size of the office budgets that a lot of these current Democratic chairs have.

I'm sorry. So there was that. And then he also promised vice chairmanships, or at least said, I'm willing to talk about vice chairmanships. It was on the table. Yeah. So this was the case he was trying to build. It never did pan out for him. We're talking about Cook again.

Cook, yes. And we entered Monday in kind of a, that was the day that I was questioning most. I'm like, I don't know exactly how this is going to turn out. But if I remember correctly, Monday was kind of quiet. I don't think there was anything big that really dropped on that day. Well, that's what I was going to say. It was as we got closer.

And to remind folks, I mean, I think folks are very familiar with this at this point. This audience listening to this podcast is pretty politically involved. But there were three candidates for speaker. We had Dustin Burroughs. We had David Cook, both Republicans. And we had Ana Maria Ramos, who was the lone Democrat who went to the floor. We had another declared candidate, but that was who ended up at the floor. And that was really where we were curious to see how many Democrats would align with her right up front and how many would say, OK, let's play ball with Burroughs.

And how many would wait until a second or third ballot once we hit runoff territory to make that happen. So that was a big part of that discussion. Monday, you know, it's the day before session. It's like Christmas Eve. People are focused. There's a lot of, aside from the speaker's race, which the conversations were still fully happening behind the scenes, people are getting their offices set up.

They're getting ready for people to come visit. They're getting ready for family in town. Like there's a lot more going on than just considering the speaker's race. Like it's almost administrative and logistical. And on Tuesday, though, that kind of changed. And I will say, too, that the closer we got to the vote on Tuesday, which the House gaveled in at noon, there were ceremonial duties they had to, you know, take in.

And they – why did you look up? I was thinking about something. Oh, I was like, the gavel didn't noon. And then after that period was over, that's when the speaker process really began. So it was around like 1.30ish, I want to say. Yeah. And I think the only thing that came out on Monday was the resolution governing the rules of the speaker vote the housekeeping resolution yes yes yes which we'll get to also in a second but the closer we got to that vote i'd say that it became less and less likely because there were

rumors of a third gop candidate who could potentially come in and unite more republicans get that you know across the finish line kind of negate a candidacy from Burroughs or Cook, and we just, you know, became less and less likely the closer we got, and that just ended up not happening. Well, practically speaking, you're not going to have someone just all of a sudden declare on the floor that they're, like, this is gonna be a surprise. You would have someone have announced before then. Votes would be whipped. Or if you do it well, votes would be whipped. Like certainly a lot of haphazard things can happen.

But if you do it well, you go to the floor knowing you're either darn close to that threshold or you've got it. And that just did not materialize. We also heard Monday morning, I mean, you were talking to so many folks about members switching sides. And there were statements that were coming out, too, which was very telling, I think, ahead of the vote. Walk us through how members were kind of, what sides they were falling on and who switched. Yeah, so I think the first one was... Before the vote. Before the vote was Caroline Fairley, Republican from Amarillo. Her father is, of course, freshman. Her father is, of course, Alex Fairley. He announced

the Texas Republican Leadership Fund, which is the $20 million fund that he promised originally to primary members based on the speakership vote. Now, that Friday of the UT game, before Raymond announced, Fairley adjusted that statement. And he said that it will not focus on the speaker vote. It will focus on whether you are sufficiently conservative. The speaker vote has been used as one of the metrics for that. But he was definitely moving the goalposts on that commitment and what he would use this for. And so that, there was a lot of buzz about that. People were, members, staffers were, you know, the consultants on each side and all sides of this,

theorizing that this is now, this may now be something rather than to use as a cudgel, a $20 million cudgel against Republicans in the primary, maybe used as shelter in a primary. Now that'll depend on who the member is. It should be a wild switch from what it was originally advertised as. Absolutely. It'll vary. He's not going to back everybody, but there are members now who probably have a chance at significant backing from that who had nothing like that they could count on before. And that affects, whether you agree with it or not, that affects decision-making, right? And of course it does. So that was big. Well, fast forward to Tuesday, and Caroline Fairley, I got wind of this, she put out a statement saying that she was flipping from Cook to Burroughs.

And she had been very involved in the reform group from the beginning. She was one of the chief members or members-elect at the time whipping votes for John Smithy in the barbecue meeting, in the reformer vote meeting in September. The barbecue meeting. And of course, they're both from Amarillo, so they're friends and they're, you know, backing each other. So it makes sense why she was backing him. Well, he lost and David Cook won. Then we went on this whole journey. Of course, the reform group is who has been backing Cook throughout this process. So the group that has said, hey, we need somebody other than at the time Speaker Phelan to lead the House. Yep. So

she puts out that statement. She says in there, specifically, I hope Representative Smithy will join me, and we can have a rural Texas speaker, Texas House speaker. And that will benefit Amarillo just like it will benefit Lubbock, and that being Dustin Burroughs, who is from Lubbock. And Smithy ended up sticking with Cook on both rounds of voting too. He did, yes. He did not waver, but there were others who did move, and Cecil Bell was one. So he was the other flip from Cook to Burroughs. Now his was kind of hinted at earlier too

because he went on a Twitter spree last week the week before criticizing the quote outside forces that are directing a lot of rhetorical fire at a lot of these members and especially the republicans backing boroughs the ones sending mail pieces you know GOP did that. But it's not just limited to them. The Tim Dunn-funded apparatus, whatever, there are various groups involved in that, at least various organization names.

They were putting a lot of pressure. The activists, Republican activists who support those two entities, those two things, they were putting pressure on members on social media. This became a statewide campaign. It was a public pressure campaign.

And so that upset Cecil Bell. And so my interpretation is that that was a big reason why he flipped, because he was sick of that. Who tends to be a more quiet member. So for Cecil Bell to come out, it was very interesting to hear that from him. If he hadn't come out and done his Twitter spree, I would have been very shocked that he flipped. I would have come out of nowhere. Yeah. So. And these are all people we're talking about before the vote who had already flipped.

So leading up to the vote on Tuesday, Monday more, or excuse me, Tuesday more, all this was really happening. Yeah. And I think you tweeted out it too, which was funny. You were like, votes are moving. Yeah. People are moving around. And everyone was like, you can't leave us hanging like that.

Like, tell us who. But some of it was public and some of it was very much behind the scenes until when i tweeted that nothing was public yet but it was all about to be public which is why i didn't say it at the moment of course you can't yeah that's how that works um but the adrenaline's getting to you and you're like i've got to say something but then the other the third flip was the other direction ryan guian from burrows to cook and which fairly and guian's announcements were back to back like The third flip was the other direction, Ryan Guillen from Burroughs to Cook. Which Fairley and Guillen's announcements were back-to-back. Those happened so quickly.

Yep. It almost kind of looked like the Cook side responded with their own. Yeah. I'd also say that that was incredibly notable because a third candidate, like that idea of a third candidate that had been floated around, Guillen was always named in those conversations too, right? Yes, yes. As a potential, that was a name that was floating around in those conversations

as one of those potential third GOP candidates. And so his backing of Cook, everyone was like, okay, we kind of are seeing the cards fall. And that's something the Cook side was trying to get for a while. Former Democrat. Yep. From South Texas, Starr County. It was a big get for him. But it didn't come soon enough, I think.

Yeah. In terms of having influence on potentially other votes. Right. For sure. Fairleys, though, did have on potentially other votes. Right. For sure. Fairleys, though, did have influence on other votes. And the big reason is because of the PAC that her father has, that Alex Fairley has. And it just provides political cover, right? That's what these members are looking for. A lot, you know, there's a lot of them that are either on the fence or were, let's call them

Burroughs-lite, who may have gone one way or the other, who they were not wavering in their personal support for boroughs. They didn't want to deal with the primary. That's not the case for all of them. There are a lot of them that were opposed to boroughs, right? But that massive war chest gave them protection. And we'll see if it still protects them in the primary. I don't know. What can happen between now and then?

And at that point, too, depending on how the speakership goes, the fault lines may have entirely changed, right? I mean, last time we were talking about beginning of session, oh, border issues, this, like school choice, and school choice ended up being a huge part of it. But then we had an impeachment. Like the fall lines changed or were added to. And so we, of course, we'll see that this session. I think once we got to the vote, we should talk about the housekeeping resolution and generally how that affects the vote. But I think the big takeaway from the actual speaker

process was that it was publicly at least and on the floor much less contentious than folks expected it to be. And I count us among those folks who are waiting for more fireworks actually on the floor and on mics. Explain quickly what the housekeeping resolution is and how that affects how the vote goes down. So it's a set of language that governs the way the speaker election is going to be conducted. Basically like the house rules for this vote. Yes. And so they said there was questions about where they're going to set the line to win the speakership, whether it was going to be a flat 76 or if it was going to be. Which would be 51 percent. Yep. 50 plus one. Or if it would be the majority of those voting. And the reason that matters is, let's say you have a chunk of members just abstain.

Well, that lowers the threshold. So that didn't happen. They got 76. And there was a chunk of members that did abstain, but we'll get to that later. Yeah. So that went down without any fight. I thought that's what we were going to have. We thought that would be amendments.

Especially because we didn't have a third candidate jump in. I thought that's where we're going to have, especially because we didn't have a third candidate jump in. I thought that's where we're going to have some fight. And the reason we knew no third candidate would join further into the process is because the nominations for speaker candidates had to happen before that. So once the housekeeping resolution was done and passed, no more opportunity for that. The candidates are the candidates. Once the nominations occur. Yes. Oh, sorry. Yes. After their speech. Well, that was another part

of this that was less likely than that other aspect I talked about to change. But the part of it was that are you able to nominate someone new between rounds of voting? And what the resolution said is no. Yeah. So whoever was nominated at the beginning, that's who you have, unless and until everyone gets angry enough and frustrated enough that they repeal that resolution and then repass it, resetting nominations. Which could have been possible. I think everyone kind of thought that, except for you, which we'll get to in a second,

that there were going to be a lot more rounds of voting than there were. The possibility was certainly out there. But there are also rumors about secret ballots saying that, hey, maybe we can take the pressure off of people. I think different camps had different angles. They were working for potential rules changes. We didn't see any of these actually come forward in terms of amendments. But one of the arguments you know, arguments was that, hey, maybe the boroughs camp will push for a secret ballot so that this, you know, threat of primary will be kind of removed from concerns for these members who might be on the fence or would go boroughs if they didn't have pressure from

outside, from their districts or elsewhere. But that did not happen either. The threshold was not lowered, and there were no additional nominations, which then we moved into nomination speeches, right, where members supportive of any of the candidates come forward and give their arguments for why their candidate of choice would be supported. I think a lot of them were pretty cut and dry. What did you think of them? I think there were two most notable. I think it lot of them were pretty cut and dry. What did you think of them? I think there were two most notable. I think it was Hull for Burroughs and I think it was Raymond for Cook. And I put Raymond for Cook at number one. The two closers. Yeah, the two closers,

which makes sense. They were placed there for a reason. Yeah. But I'll just run through the names quickly. Burroughs had Guerin, Placer, Rose, and Hull. So Burroughs had two Republicans, two Democrats. Cook had Frank, Raymond, Troxclair, and Ashby. Is that all? There were four, right? So one Democrat and Raymond. And Ramos had Morales, Bryant, Jones, and then Ramos herself. So those were all Democrats.

Very interesting to watch. And keep in mind that all of these are deliberately selected and tailored. Like Ashby. Not just who is speaking, but the order in which they're speaking. These campaigns are thinking about that. And I did not list these in order also, for the record. These are not in order. So keep that in mind. Raymond and Hole were the ones to end for Burroughs and Cook, respectively.

And the one who concluded for Ramos was Ramos herself. Yes. But I thought, I thought Hull and Raymond were often the most, or were the most compelling for sure. Raymond, in that he gets up there, again, a Democrat, very willingly naming names and saying, hey, we had Phelan as a speaker. This is kind of how it's been. We had Dennis Bonin as a speaker. This is how it's been. And how can we forget the scandal that happened during Bonin's speakership, where he and Dustin Burroughs were in a room with Michael Quinn Sullivan at the time in Power Texans, naming 10 Republicans that they said, hey, you can primary these people. And in exchange, you will get media access to the floor, right? So a very controversial

time in Texas politics. And Burroughs and Bonin, of course, being that they were the ones offering this, bore the brunt of that political mistake. It was an unbelievable time in Texas politics. And until a recording came out, there were denials for weeks that this happened from that camp. And Raymond mentioned that in the speech. So this is, and he's very willingly going forward and saying like, this is his argument being that, hey, do we want the status quo to continue? Like Bonin is still involved in all of the behind the scenes things. like these are the same guys that have been in leadership for a long time that was his argument as a democrat going for the Cook camp saying hey our democrats not going to win but Cook has a chance so that's why I'm arguing in favor is for new leadership isn't it funny that in the 2019 session there was only one point of scandal, contention.

And it was not policy oriented. No. And it was after the session too. Yeah. Very wild to think about. But when he went up there and started naming these names, which of course, a lot of members are having these conversations behind the scenes saying like, this is not, this is recent history,

but they're not saying it out loud. Like it was not really a point of contention that much publicly in the speaker's race. But to have it mentioned, I think there was a change in environment and dynamic in that room and for people listening at home when that was mentioned. Like it was just an immediate change.

Especially because of what prefaced it from Team Cook. I was listening. I didn't type out everything but i was noticing the themes that they were talking about and burroughs's supporters they were all generally about the same thing and that was anti the dynamic that i talked about earlier about the outside forces the rpt the dunn groups um that was the main through line for all of those, every single one, including Holes. Now, Holes was the most compelling, but that was the strategy from Team Burroughs. And what they were playing to there was the fact that this is a member contest. Member to member, only members have

a vote. Which is true. Yeah. This is not a campaign, at least like any of the others. Basically making the pitch, ignore the outside noise, do what you believe is right here. And that was their argument. Now, on the Cook side, I was kind of struck. It was all very positive, the first three. And I did not anticipate that. I don't know what I was expecting, but I just didn't expect that. And it stuck out.

And it especially stuck out when Raymond got up and gave his speech. There was more fire and brimstone. Oh my gosh. Yes. Pounding the, the pulpit. Um, and as a Democrat having the, you know, uh, having perhaps a little bit less to lose to say those things, then maybe a Republican would feel like they'd have in the house now with Burroughs now in the speaker's chair, spoiler alert, like that's not necessarily the case for Raymond, but regardless it was very powerful coming from him. Yeah, absolutely. And so we had the speeches. I should mention the Democrats theme, at least those backing Ramos, was Republicans have run the state for 20, almost 25 years now, and what do they have to show for it?

The state is a mess, and we need a change in direction. And that direction, they said, is electing a Democratic speaker. So those were the three themes, and I don't think anyone's mind was changed by any of them. You were absolutely spot on. It made you sit up in your chair and listen. I don't think anyone's mind was changed by any of them. You were absolutely spot on that Holes was, it made you sit up in your chair and listen, along with Raymond's. Totally. But it didn't change anybody's mind.

And unlike Smithy's speech during impeachment that did change a lot of people's minds on the floor in real time. Yes. These did not. It was more of a gauge of how compelling they were. Like, dang, that was compelling. Not so much that your vote changed necessarily. And that was reflected based on just who voted and how they voted. And it was pretty clear where the fault lines were before the vote and nothing really changed after. But I'd say those were the most compelling. So then we move

into round one of voting, which I'll also encourage folks, if you want a breakdown of how the votes fared in both rounds, who switched to which side, who stayed aligned with their camp. We have a great piece of that Cameron and Mary Lee's put together. That's just a spreadsheet of all of it basically on our site. So go check that out. That's what we're referencing when we're talking about this. But it's a great reference point, and I know we'll look at it a lot going forward just to keep in mind who is on what side and when. The other thing that I forgot to mention on the speech is Phil Prezen at NBC Dallas mentioned this to me on the floor that he found it interesting, the two Democrats who spoke for Burroughs are both from DFW. And Ana Maria Ramos is also from DFW.

So two Dallas Democrats speaking against their fellow Dallas Democrat. Yeah, Placid and Rose. And Placid is notable because she was one who had her cell phone number blasted out by the courageous conservative PAC, which is run by Chris Ekstrom, rabble rouser, frequent political candidate, donor activist. He sent out text messages that had cell phone numbers of members on both sides. Places was the one that went pretty viral on it. And so if Ekstrom's goal was to try and help the Cook side,

he did not do that. He did the opposite. And that is another big theme to this, to how it turned out. That outside noise worked in some ways. You know, these guys we saw after the caucus walk out go from Burroughs to Cook, but it didn't do enough. It stopped working, and in fact it worked the opposite direction for some members. Yeah.

And again, I'll also say to you that this, like, I mean, you were totally right in that the Burroughs camp, like their whole argument was like, let's keep the house, the house. We have traditions here. This is how we've operated for so long. It's bipartisan. We were not like other legislative bodies across the country or in DC. That's the argument and saying, Hey, let's, let's keep these outside forces specifically again, talking about Republican billionaires out of the house. But the argument and saying, hey, let's keep these outside forces, specifically, again, talking about Republican billionaires out of the House. But the argument there can extend in all sorts of different directions, too, because, of course, this is a representative body. They represent constituencies that care very deeply about this.

And this is the first, well, not the first, but it was a very public speaker race. And constituents cared very deeply speaker race and constituents cared very deeply. Republican primary voters cared very deeply about this race and were making that very apparent. So really there's two approaches, right? Like we are representing our constituents and that means that we should vote according to what they want, which again, you can argue, okay, who are your constituents? Is it the whole district? Is it Republican primary voters? Like there's a whole argument there. But that's the art.

Like, again, they're still representing constituencies. And so outside influence, you know, that sounds so negative. But the other side would argue that's our constituents. Like that's the two sides here that you're dealing with in terms of who's pulling strings. It's like it can either be the boogeyman who are the billionaires or it's your constituents. And those are the two arguments kind of at war with each other. It's two entirely irreconcilable worldviews, which is kind of how we're seeing this broad fight play out.

And so it was run like a primary, like a campaign. And the other side, the borough side, was trying to counteract the messaging. And they kind of diverted to this rural versus urban messaging. That's not really what a speaker's race is about, at least this one. This is about the factions fighting, right? And every speaker's race is always to somebody like that. Yes. And every speaker's race is always to somebody like that. Always, yes. But that's how – it became a PR fight. Yes.

And one side started it. The other side contributed to it just as much later on. And the only point I make is that the tactics that are very effective in an election have a limit to their effectiveness in a contest like this, and I think we saw that bear out. Maybe that changes when the membership changes. So if we have another crazy primary, that might change the mathematics here. And we're coming in after a primary where that school choice, Governor Abbott, the candidates who were very much saying,

hey, incumbency is not doing us any good. That was the argument, had a very successful primary. So members are coming in to this legislature saying, dang, I've really got to watch it. That's the atmosphere, and that's even more so what we're dealing with. And it's always the case when you are elected by a constituency you're always kind of taking the temperature of back home as you should as a representative but it's a different level right now after the very successful primary for this group of incoming freshmen who were

largely in favor of Cook. Yep. Should we go to the vote now? Yeah, I guess we should probably say what round one resulted in. It was, after the first vote, 71 for Burroughs, 56 for Cook, and was it 9? No, 23 on the first vote. Yep. 23 for Ramos. And so walked through each of those coalitions there. The Burroughs coalition, he was five away. So with all intents and purposes, we all knew he was going to get it on the second ballot

because he was only five away. Yeah, after the first vote, 71, you texted me and said, I knew it. And I was like, what did you know? I called it, put it in my flag. I do have a portion in here. Look at this. Do you see this part? Brad was right about the two rounds. Yep. And I said, blah, putting my flag. I do have a portion in here. Look at this. Do you see this part? Brad was right about the two rounds.

Yep. And I said, blah, blah, blah. Maybe you should listen to me more. Good luck on that one. So then you had Cook at 56, and that wasn't just a win for Burroughs in the first round, at least symbolic. It was kind of a loss for Cook because there was a lot of talk about him being... Yeah. Okay. Why?

I'm not positive about that. I think he lost one vote in the second round. Okay. But he also gained votes in the second round. Or gained one vote in the second round. Maybe it was a 55 then? Let me go confirm. You keep going. So, regardless, there's a lot of talk about Cook being around 60

and then gaining from there with Democrats. But in that first vote, he was not at that line. Yeah, 56 round one. You're right. Stop doubting me. The math doesn't make sense. Stop doubting me. The math doesn't make sense. But, yeah, Cook was at 56, and that was foreshy of where not his floor among Republicans was,

but kind of what they were guessing was the likeliest amount on the first ballot. So that was a bad sign for him and a good sign for Burroughs. And then you had the 23 Democrats backing Ramos. And throughout this whole race, Ramos, there were 23 uncommitted Democrats, only one of which said they were for Ramos openly. At least that I remember. That was Ray Lopez. And he actually said that around the time Raymond made his commitment.

So the question was not whether they were going to stick with Ramos. The question was, were they going to go to Burroughs or not? Or Cook? And we saw most of them did not. But even in how you phrased that is how people were considering it, right? Like Ramos or Burroughs or cook like right that is how folks were thinking about it because cook just had a it was more uphill steeper uphill climb to get democrats it's just the nature of it and so the first vote happened now we know where the kind of the initial lines are drawn now what's going to happen what is sinfronia thompson going to do right because she's been one of the big um ringleaders of opposition among them the

uncommitted democrats to burroughs because she is which is very interesting yes she does not like dustin burroughs and a big reason why was the Death Star bill from last session. She's from Houston. The Death Star bill was not explicitly aimed at Houston, but they are one of the big reasons why that was proposed. It was a regulation bill, a preemption bill. And so that was a big focus, and I'm sure it's not the only one, of why Ms. T opposed Burroughs for so long.

Now, she eventually came on board in the second round voting. And the good question is, like, what got her there? I don't know. A lot of speculation about various things that I'm sure we'll eventually find it out, whether it's committee assignments or although she has been here so long, I don't think she's worried about something as trite as that. But regardless, the writing was on the wall at 71. Fourteen more people flipped to Burroughs on the second ballot. So between round one and round two, it was pretty seamless.

It was quick. Also, Secretary of State Jane Nelson was the one overseeing the vote. She was acting as speaker and navigating all the housekeeping rules and everything else. But round two started, and like you said, 14 more went to Burroughs. Went to Burroughs. And so the final round was 85 Burroughs, 55 Cook, 9 present not voting. Now, we did see flips go for both of the top two candidates. Yes.

Because Ramos was eliminated after the first one. Because it was, like, functioning as a runoff where the top two candidates move forward. Yep. So Ramos was among them that voted for Cook, and hers was a protest vote, as she said in the statement afterward. But we saw two— Explain that a protest vote, as she said in the statement afterward. But we saw two— Explain that, protest vote. She does not like Democrats doing this coalition government with Republicans and vice versa in the House. She thinks that it hasn't served Democrats well anyway, so why are we doing this?

Why are we putting up with this charade, right? A lot of different arguments about that. You know, I'm sure Joe Moody would object to that. Joe Moody also is one of the favorites who gets the good. Favorites of Republicans in power. Who gets, you know, the committee chairmanships if and when they still exist. He was even Speaker Pro Tem for a long time. Speaker Pro Tem, yep, until the quorum break.

So in the Democratic caucus, there's a lot of fight between the haves and the have-nots, just like there is in the Republican caucus. Because it's a coalition government, that's naturally going to happen. And so then you have the philosophical dispute here. We need to act more like D.C. in the way they run it there with a minority chairman spot in committees. It's cut and dry and clear. Yep. And it actually forces the minority party to coalesce more.

So they're a larger voting bloc. They have more say on things because they're voting together rather than this fractured system, right? Ironically enough, those on the Cook side also wanted a majority-minority committee chair governing system. Because for them, the big rallying cry has been no Dem chairs for multiple cycles now. That's almost the policy platform of that side. I mean, it is a legislative priority for the party. Even though it's not policy, it is rules reform.

So you have these, it's kind of like horseshoe theory. You have these two sides at the very tip of the half of their faction, of their party, and on certain things they agree more than they do with the sides up here that are really tight, close together. So it makes sense when you think about it, why these different fights played out. But it ended up with Burroughs getting the gavel. Absolutely. So nine members registered as present but not voting, which is that coalition I was talking about earlier. We're using the word coalition so much. That block of members who opted to just abstain, right? But it was not big enough to warrant a lessening of that threshold to get to 76. 14 members switched to boroughs and Ramos was the lone member to switch to Cook. And in our piece, we do list the vote changes. So if you want just a quick reference point. Great piece by Cameron and Mary Lise.

It's pretty easy. Now we talked about this, we referenced this a little bit earlier, but the three Democrats who did end up voting for Cook, so Cook got three Democrats at the end of the day. Ramos, which we've talked about, Sergio Munoz, and Richard Raymond, which of course you knew Raymond. Munoz, explain the, you've already mentioned it, but the significance of the Munoz and Raymond districts in their vote for Cook. Well, Munoz kind of flew under the radar because he just pulled the lever for Cook. He didn't come out with a statement and say, I'm committed to David Cook. He just did it. He just did it.

But both of them are in districts that Trump won in the last election, and by a significant amount. And Munoz did vote for Cook both rounds, too. Yeah. They outperformed Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket by a lot. There were like nine, maybe like a dozen, around a dozen, South Texas Democrats who all fit that. And so that's going to be something to watch, a theme to watch in the cycle next, in 2026.

But these are two, this is notable because it doesn't necessitate a party flip, but it kind of does gesture at one. Who knows if that ends up happening, but those are two, especially because of what they did here, that would make you think, okay, this might be in the cards more than just pie in the sky thinking by Republicans. So that was notable to me. Ramos, as I said, was just a protest vote. But that was it. Cook, I mean, really, he hit his ceiling at, I'd say, two Democrats because Ramos was not really a vote for Cook spiritually. So much as a, yeah.

So much as a, so much as a, I hate, you know what I mean. So much as a, conceptually. So whoosh of you, Bradley. So much as a hate. I can't stand the Burroughs coalition vote, right? For sure. So, I mean, yeah, the question going into this was could Cook get any Democrats, and he got a very small amount.

Yeah, got a couple, got a handful. And you're right about the two rounds. Congrats to you. It was interesting, too, in that after the board lit up, which was interesting, this is just inside baseball, but in the House you have a voting board with three lights, a green light for yes, a red light for no, and a white light for present not voting.

So if you white light, that's what they were talking about, is you're voting like, I'm kind of abstaining, like I'm staying out of it, which typically is viewed as like a cowardly vote like just vote on the policy yes or no but for this in the first round when you had three candidates there was you know names were drawn to determine which color would be assigned to which candidate so burrows was green ramos was red and cook was white so they voted you see the light up. It was obvious that no one had won after a couple minutes, and they counted and confirmed.

But in the second round when Ramos, you know, did not make it to the runoff and it was just Cook and Burroughs, you know, that's why we say the white light, the president not voting. There were nine Democrats who still did not vote for either candidate. It was pretty obvious that Burroughs had won. And especially once it was announced, the Burroughs contingency, there's some members kind of all gathering around his desk, including Phelan, which is so interesting to have a former speaker, just as a member in the House.

Craddock is an exception to that typical rule, erupted in applause and excitement, which is very interesting. And there were a lot of videos circulating on social media. They were just super excited that their guy won. And notably as well, the crowd in the gallery, who for the most part was largely pro-Coke, did not erupt in any sort of disruptive way at all, which I think is very interesting because they were very,

like there were a lot of folks who bust in from around the state, Republican activists who were there hoping that their member voted for Cook and hoping that a different result would happen than did, and we kind of moved forward. Like, again, it was a pretty peaceful day in terms of a very contentious speakership contest. Now, I will say after the vote vote there were a lot of members who were on the Cook side and on the Moore contract with Texas side who were pissed. They were very mad and this was their first experience in the House voting on something. Oh so freshmen you're talking about. Freshmen. David Lowe came up to me and said we're going to war. Wow. Mitch Little had a lot to say, very critical of how it went down. Other members were talking about how miffed they were at some of the members who went back on

their word, you know, saying they committed to Cook and they ended up voting for Burroughs. It's, there were a lot of people in, not all of them, there were some who had been around a long time, you know, John Smithy is one of them, right? But there were a lot of members who are new to this process, especially because we've never seen a speaker fight like this before. And in the last two cycles, we haven't really had a speaker election, especially when we got this close to session starting, right? So there's a lot of negotiations going on. There's a lot of, hey, are you still with me? Yes, I'm still with you. And then going and calling the other guy and saying, oh, no, I'm with you. A lot of double dealing here.

That's the nature of these things. So it's kind of a week of it. It's usually a little bit different than this. Usually if a letter is released with a bunch of names on a list, at least in recent memory, it's pretty much set. Well, you also – This is also the first actually contentious speaker fight in a very long time. It was also those other lists that were put out were well above 76.

Yes. And so on that list that Burroughs put out when he declared victory, all you needed was one person to come out and say, I did not agree to be on this, which happened immediately. Yes. And then you all of a sudden don't have a governing coalition. So, you know, when Phelan announced, it was, I think like 83 or 86, one of those two quickly went up more, and then went up more, and then it was everybody when he first won. Bonin was in the 90s when he announced. And got over 100 pretty quickly. Yep.

So there's a lot of reasons why this was unique. Yeah. But that personal side of things, you know, there are a lot of relationships that were broken that had been built over months and months in that building on both sides. Raymond, you know, people are pissed at Raymond on the other side, you know, Democrats and Republicans on the borough side of things. Some of them said, oh, I wasn't surprised to see that, but they're still being very critical of that, especially his speech where he mentioned former Speaker Bonin. But then on the other side, you have the ringleaders of the Cook team who thought they had these people on their side until the last minute when they didn't. I think there's a lot of lessons to be learned for the members in this about how this goes, about the tactics that were used on all sides and all throughout.

Burroughs is going to have a tough time keeping things calm in the House. And if he can do it, wow. I mean, that would be one of the most skillful political jobs I've ever seen. Just because this thing is primed to blow up at some point. Absolutely primed to blow up. There is always going to be a threat of vacating the chair. Always. Explain how that might happen.

So... Again, the House rules. You're talking about the House rules. And in a couple of days, we will have the House rules on the floor in that whole debate. So just prepare for that. We'll be covering that extensively. But that really is what governs how the House operates. Yeah.

And it's especially important in the House because members are, they do have a lot of options for point of orders and different maneuvers that can either kill legislation or vacate the chair. Yep. So a motion to vacate the chair is a motion to remove someone as speaker. And that is seen as like a nuclear option. I always picture like an ejection seat in a plane when the vacate the chair phrase is brought up. So it requires requires let's see so you need a certain number of signatures motion would need 76 votes or majority of members present to evict a speaker

i think do you know the signature side of that? Like, how many signatures do you need to trigger that? No, but I'll be very interested to see if there's any reforms proposed for this kind of move in the House-Royal debate. Do they drop it? It used to be 10 signatures at some point, if it's not still that. To start the process. Right.

But that's, you know, you know the saying, you come with the king, you best not miss. Seriously, yeah. Well, that's seen as a nuclear option because if you're doing that, if you're one of, let's say it's 10 signatures to trigger that, which you then need 76 to remove, if that doesn't work, that speaker is going to come down very hard on those, especially 10 members who voted to, who signed something to trigger it, right? So it's rarely used, although there was a lot of talk about it last session in one of the specials, and that led to some kerfuffle over the ability to ask questions to the back mic for representative tinderholt he was

banned from that um you know burroughs has like i said a really big task in front of him to try and manage this it's not just what policy gets across the line in fact that's probably the least pivotal in terms of compared to Phelan. Phelan got a lot of conservative policy across the line, sometimes not quick enough for the activists on the right, but he still got it done. What really sunk him as being speaker was managing poorly the membership. And that comes in many different forms. I talked a lot about the points of order stuff, the criticisms of Hugh Brady as parliamentarian,

which, by the way, he's no longer parliamentarian, at least as of now. It doesn't look like that. The writing was on the wall. Yep. That was an easy concession to make for boroughs to get something some votes on on board call some concerns yes so they're the management of the chamber and especially for these reform members how imperious he is as a speaker. Like, is he, you know, bringing the gavel down on people? Or is he being fairly, you know, hands-off?

Or at least enough to warn? Administrative. Administrative. Which is always the, you know, proposed desire of any member at any given time, which then can manifest itself in different ways. Like, actually, I do want you to kind of, you know, put your foot on the pedal for my stuff, not for these other guys' stuff.

But that's what members claim that they want, is an administrative speaker who enforces the rules and let the will of the house. And every speaker says they're going to do that. Totally. And do they? No. You know, to varying degrees, right?

To varying degrees. Sometimes they do it well. To varying degrees is much more fair. Sometimes they don't do it at all. Totally. And you know what? Like, it's a tough job being a speaker. Very degrees is much more fair. Sometimes they don't do it at all. Totally. And you know what? It's a tough job being a speaker. Yes.

Oh, my gosh. Try managing 150, 149 different people. Yeah. Right? That's just, from the outset, next to impossible to do. You're going to have people pissed off at you, which is why when you become speaker, you put a time crunch on your political tenure. Because you're going to have people pissed off at you which is why when you become speaker you put a time crunch on your political tenure

because you're going to become hated regardless of who you are it's just going to happen for some people it's worth it others it's not I can't understand why anybody would want to do that job but watch 20 years Brad's the speaker

no way I'd give you permission to take me back out and shoot me if I do that But, you know. Watch 20 years Brad's the speaker. No way. No way. I give you permission to take me back out and shoot me if I do that. Got it. Noted. So anyway, let's touch on Burroughs' speech when he was accepting this. Do you want to talk about the chairman that were on the side quickly?

Oh, yeah. Okay. So those, there were six chairmen who voted for David Cook. I only put five of them together in a category as people who are probably not going to have chairmanship next session. So that opens chairs there for Burroughs to hand out if he wants to preserve everyone else who voted for him, their chairmanship. I don't think that'll all happen. You'll probably see some shifts around. Big question, where does Phelan land? What if he's given calendars?

I was going to say, they just swapped. Well, they swapped office spaces, didn't they? Burroughs took the Speaker's office, and Phelan took Burroughs' old office. Yeah. Talk about an ax to grind. Nobody has an ax to grind more office and Phelan took Burroughs' old office. Yeah. Talk about an ax to grind. Nobody has an ax to grind more than Dave Phelan does. And that would be fascinating. But how much does he care?

Right. Does he not want to deal with it? Maybe not. Maybe so. I mean, much like the Speakership, the Calendar's Chair is a very disdained position because you piss people off, right? You just do. Of course.

You just do. Whether it's decision-making that was poor on your part and whether it's just the nature of the job, both things can be true. Whether you're killing a very significant high-profile bill and falling on your sword or someone's rinky-dink little district bill, which to them is very important. But to you is like, I can't. I have all these other things I've got to put on there, you know. So it's tough to balance. And that'll be fascinating to see who gets that slot. Yeah.

I'm very curious to watch. Okay, so the chairmanships. I don't think I mentioned the names. So Dr. Oliverson, he runs insurance right now. James Frank runs human services. Briscoe Cain runs agriculture and livestock. J.M. Lozano runs urban affairs. And Trent Ashby runs culture, recreation, and tourism.

Five very, for boroughs anyway, easy slots to evict them and hand it to someone who actually voted for them. Ollerson being the first person who entered the race for Speaker to challenge Phelan. Yep, and then you have Frank also got in the race as a Speaker candidate. Then you had Briscoe Cain, who was one of the ringleaders of the reform group. Negotiators. Yep. Jay and Lozano was blasting Burroughs pretty harshly on Twitter constantly, although it was pretty funny that I was talking to Representative Lozano on the floor on Thursday.

I was like, so, you're going to continue the Twitter thing? He's like, no, I'm done with that. I'm putting that behind me, at least for now. Maybe he brings it back. We'll see. And then you have Trent Ashby, who was a late addition to the Cook side. Relatively, though. It was in December, wasn't it, or November?

Yeah, before the caucus, I think, right? But he wasn't in the Reform group. And he was a very notable name to join the reform group. Yes. A very, very notable name. That put a lot of wind behind Cook's sales. He's definitely not going to get a chairmanship back. So that's something to watch there. We'll see when they put out committee assignments. I don't know how long it's going to take. There are a lot more committees in the House. That's one reason it takes longer.

Also, when you have a new speaker. Nobody knew who the speaker was going to be. It also takes a while because they're trying to figure out who they can put where. Balancing things and negotiating, the coalition building. Do Democrats want, is one of the things they require, a Democratic majority on a committee, not a chairmanship, but a majority on criminal jurisprudence, let's say. Those are all things that they're talking about, and that's a big part of why it takes so long for them to put these committee assignments out compared with this the um the senate 31 members yeah both of which has continuity in who their leader is patrick lieutenant governor and a lot

less turnover it's just in four-yearyear terms. Yep. Very different. Two entirely different chambers. But as we, yeah, so that's something to watch there. But yeah, this is going to be very difficult for Burroughs to manage. And we'll see if he's up to it. Well, let's talk about his rhetoric and tone and speech after all of this happened. You know, I think it's, you talked a little bit about his speech and maybe criticisms of it but largely the tone has been very amicable and open um saying even before because the house and the senate have both you know adjourned for a few days saying hey let's give some time for the um for members to go to dc for the inauguration

which is typically what happens this is tradition they take some time off and say we're not going for members to go to D.C. for the inauguration, which is typically what happens. This is tradition. They take some time off and say, we're not going to do any legislative business. So this Wednesday is when they come back. But before that, you know, Burroughs is saying, hey, come by my office.

Let's have meetings. Let's start the process, which is incumbent upon the new speaker whenever they do to do something along these lines. So it's nothing out of the ordinary, but time will tell how amicable the house really is, especially after a speaker's race that was as contentious as this was. So I think that's a really big part of this whole conversation is which members were on the Cook side, but maybe enough on the outskirts or understandably concerned about a primary where Burroughs and his team are saying, hey, yeah, come back into the fold. Like, your honor, you know, we're not going to punish you to the extent that we will. Maybe somebody who was at the negotiating

table. It'll be very interesting to see how that actually works and how Burroughs, and again, in terms of public conversation, his tone has been open, but how will that look like behind the scenes? How will members' impressions of their new speaker end up after those in-person meetings? Will they say, yes, there is certainly room for me at the table, or will they say, okay, I'm in the doghouse? Like, what approach will be taken will be very indicative of how the rest of the session goes. And the appetite, I think, for whether or not, you know, a motion to vacate the chair actually can happen yep if members feel punished to an extent that is

very difficult to stomach there will certainly be more appetite for something along those lines even among borough supporters who are like okay this is not what how we want to unify the house regardless you're going to have more people than you have in the past um you know trying to blow up things on on the calendar or because there are some members who like say i don't want to be part of the bird's camp like i'm sick of the way this is being done totally and now we're just doing that same old same old so there's gonna be more than we had in the past doing that i think especially last session the one before that but there's going to be more than we had in the past doing that, I think, especially last session, the one before that. But there's going to be a lot of effort to try and extend an olive branch to some of these members, especially, like, the thing I've heard is,

you know, particularly freshmen, but not just freshmen, those who maintained an open line of communication, who didn't just, who especially didn't crap talk on Twitter, you know, they're going to try and bring that back into the fold because they need to. They need it. You know, this is no longer a Burroughs versus Cook. This is a Burroughs or what. So, you know, that is naturally going to pull more Republicans back into his camp. But it is incumbent on both sides to be amicable in that process, right? So it's incumbent upon the speaker to say, yes, I actually am going to be open to members who opposed me and still usher your bills through the process and not flag them down and not

operate as, because that certainly is fear, a fear among members. It's like, okay, well, are these local bills that maybe even local officials, constituents are relying on me to get across the finish line, are they no longer on the table because I opposed Burroughs? Like, is that the political retribution that I can expect? Or will that not be how the speaker operates? Is it typically how this, or not typically, but is it common for the speaker to operate that way? Yes, absolutely, especially if there's any sort of contentious fight.

Will that happen this session? We'll see. Yeah. But it also requires those members who did oppose Burroughs on the cook camp to say, I'm going to work with you. And I'm not going to cause that, you know, maybe firestorm on the floor that other members are willing to do. And some will accept that, some will not. Totally. One thing I thought was notable in Burroughs' speech was he listed out his policy priorities, at least in vague terms. He named property taxes, water infrastructure, school funding, emphasis on that, and stopping threats of terror related to the New Orleans situation that just happened. I emphasize school funding there because he didn't mention school choice, which is, of course, Governor Abbott's top issue. Now, there's been speculation, and I think it is just that.

I don't think there's anything to it because I can't logic my way through why Burroughs would kill school choice. It just doesn't make any sense. Democrats might ask him to do that, but if he does that, even if he does win speaker, he's inviting the governor back into a primary. Now, the governor will be on the ballot. And the governor will do whatever he wants to do regardless. Right. So it just doesn't make much sense to invite the three-ton gorilla back into the room of a primary when you're in your first cycle as speaker.

It's now your job to protect all these members that just took a bullet for you in voting because now they're all going to be targeted. And Burroughs has certainly not been a member in the House that has been ardently against school choice at any point. Like that has not been a policy position that he's taken. So at what point will that, you know, at what point does that become, okay, this is a potential power play for me versus what I actually agree with politically. That's the question.

Right, right. So, yeah, I don't see that being the case. I'd much more see a deal made on dem chairs than school choice. And I definitely saw some school choice advocates celebrating on Twitter and social media saying, yeah, this is, like, Burroughs is pro-school choice. This is great. Yeah. So it'd be very surprising to see that not happen. And of course, as always, especially in the House, the question is what kind of proposal can get a gross finish line. Right. We're going to say this ad nauseum.

Yeah. For the next few months, we've said this for a year or two now. Is it high-disable funding? Yes. Like how robust can a proposal be that would actually make it to the legislature at this point with the membership? Much more robust perhaps than last session with who we have in the House now. And even one more Republican in the Senate is helpful as well,

but Dan Patrick already had his numbers. Regardless, it will be interesting. Yep, yep. as well but dan patrick already had his numbers regardless it'll be interesting yep yep so he outlined those pretty um not very controversial yeah at all but you know all big items of course so those are gonna be the things that he pushes the envelope on the most i'd say um you know clearly also by not mentioning school, he's not trying to rock the boat with the Democrats, both who voted for him and who didn't. So, as always, this stuff is carefully calculated. Yeah, what else do we want to touch on?

I think I hit everything off. Cook's statement? Cook's statement, yeah. Like how he operated after the vote is notable as well. Yeah, and there's a good picture. I think the Tribune had it as one of their story headers of him going up and congratulating Burroughs. They shook hands. Cook's handled it very gracefully, it seems.

I've not heard a single thing of any poorly handled situation on his behalf. Yeah. heard a single thing of you know any poorly handled situations yeah so he said um i want to take this opportunity to express my sincerest and deepest gratitude to everyone who supported my candidacy for speaker of the house your support uh touched me in ways that words cannot fully convey um we sparked an important and long overdue conversation about the need for reform within this body, and for that I am truly appreciative. While the outcome may not have been what I hoped for, I remain humbled to still have the privilege to work alongside my House colleagues to advance meaningful policy changes to the

betterment of all Texans." He then explicitly congratulated Speaker Burroughs on winning. Interesting note. Dan Patrick also congratulated Burroughs. Now it was also his statement was a congrats, you won. Now let's now get on board and let's pass these things. And we're going to see, we're going to test your mettle. We're going to see if you're a conservative speaker.

Use those words. You know who hasn't congratulated Burroughs, at least that I've seen so far? Publicly. Publicly, of course. Governor Abbott. Yeah. Whenever something like this happens, it is always a ticking time bomb of a governor's tweet, a press release, something congratulating whoever on a win in an election or something along these lines where a speaker gets elected that's done legislatively we've seen nothing yeah which is certainly not the role that the governor usually takes now there are a couple interesting layers to this there was of course the the pack that put out the text of burroughs and Abbott next to each other in a photo. It didn't say that Abbott was backing Burroughs, the text that was put out,

but it strongly implied that. And the governor came out forcefully against it, and then he came out post the walkout and the caucus events, and he did not say Cook by name, but he said House members should support the Republican caucus nominee, who happened to be David Cook. Abbott is always very deliberate about what he says. Very deliberate.

He doesn't pop off. No. He did not mention David Cook's name for a reason. What that is, I don't know exactly. But he is a deliberate. He doesn't pop off. No. He did not mention David Cook's name for a reason. What that is, I don't know exactly. But he is a deliberate, calculated communicator. Yes. Very disciplined in what he chooses to say and not to say. Yes.

And so he also has had a very good relationship with Burroughs. I remember when Burroughs announced the Death Star Bill or what would become that at a pre-session, pre-2023 session event with the NFIB, he did it alongside Abbott. That's right. And Abbott endorsed it right then and there. And he said all these good things about the Lubbock representative. So they are, I mean, they're fairly tight as far as a governor and a house member go, right? Now, that's gone awry before because Justin Holland and Governor Abbott were pretty tight. And then the governor took them out in the primary. So take that for what you will.

I would be shocked if the governor had not has not called Burroughs to congratulate him privately I would bet my life on it that he is that's pretty tough stuff or my life savings I'd rather yeah that's better it's still high stakes yeah but just not like deadly that's better um okay well let's talk about where Democrats and Cook supporters go from here. We've already kind of talked about it. I've already said, you know, some will be probably brought back into the fold if their transgressions are not viewed as nefarious as others.

But certainly a big contingency of Democrats, not a big contingency, but nine Democrats opted to abstain from the vote. Three voted for Cook, so that's 12 that are on the outs right now. So the vast majority of Democrats in the House did vote for Burroughs. So where do you see that going, going forward? Democrats are going to have, I mean, just like the Republicans, they're fractured. They have different competing views on the way things should be done. I see most of the Democratic caucus getting together and trying to work on things.

And, of course, as always, it will vary based on policy. Sometimes you'll have Jessica Gonzalez and Brian Harrison at the back mic together. Totally. You just never know. It's a horseshoe. When we hit policy and we get away from personalities and broad ideological stuff, you can actually see very fascinating partnerships and fights. I talk about this a lot, but one of my favorite fights on the House floor was when Terry Canales and Ben Lamont were fighting over some easement bill. And it was a question of which means more, property rights or Second Amendment rights. And nobody thought that that would be a spicy debate. No, and it was.

And all of a sudden, and there were other very, like, kind of more interesting political bills on the calendar that day. And that was what ended up being by far the most interesting. Oh, yeah. So, like, once we get to policy, you'll see things like that happen. And then you'll see more fractures. And then they'll get back together. It's just, you know, it's just how it is.

I do think that it will be interesting to watch the Democratic chair vote. I think that will determine a lot of how this session operates for the Democrats is whether or not, one, an amendment is offered and then passed that does ban Democratic chairs from being in the House. And two, if they're not, if that does not pass, whether or not Burroughs opts to appoint them or not. Because in our, in an interview with you, he did say, like, I'll leave it to the will of the House. But that just means whether or not it's mandated or not, that there is no minority party in leadership. If that does not pass, he is entirely capable and empowered as a Speaker of the House. It is his responsibility to appoint committee chairs. Or not appoint them.

Or not appoint them. It'll be very interesting to see what route he takes. Yeah. That would be a very difficult dilemma for the Speaker, which is why he wants the House to vote on it, takes it out of his hands. Now maybe he doesn't have that option. Now if it doesn't pass, then it also just goes right back into his hands.

Right, exactly. So it's like tough. Let's review the housekeeping and rules thing slightly. So the housekeeping resolution will come up and there is a, there's language in there that exists from last session that resulted in the point of order against the Democratic chair ban amendment. And it said in there that the house resources cannot be used for, quote, political purposes. It was sly.

It was clever. It's also kind of patently absurd on its face, just like logically. Like they're all, this is all politics here, right? And you're saying this counts as using House resources for political purposes, but allowing a caucus to meet in a side room is not? Right. Like, come on. But it was a clever way for leadership to fall on its sword.

And it was very pointed. And avoid a vote. Yep. Because they didn't want to be primaried on that vote. So that's setting up this fight over the housekeeping resolution that still has that language in it. Because if it remains, Democrats will be able to use, to call a point of order and use precedent for that. Question then is, it's entirely up to the

chair. If he wants to cast off, and the parliamentarian, if they want to cast off that precedent, which, by the way, Hugh Brady has been doing a lot about, I think, Rick Griesel's precedents from 2017 under Joe Strauss, you know, that's doable. It's just a question of... I think it's Chris Griesel. Chris Griesel, thank you. It's before your time. I got the last name. You youngin'.

Yeah, yeah. So... Watch me be wrong. Right. So that's... That does sound right, actually, now you say it. So that housekeeping section is going to be a fight, especially if Democrats go to the mat

on that trying to get – trying to preserve the ability to kill the amendment in the rules. How many Republicans join that if they do? You need 14 because Democrats have 62 members. I think it's pretty hard to get there, especially on this vote, because it is harder. It's easier to explain a speaker vote in a Republican primary than to explain a vote against banning Democratic chairs. And we have members out and about on the borough's camp, even on radio, on television, saying, yeah, I think this is going to pass. Like, people who are not even part of the Reform

Caucus group. People who are in leadership. Yes. Cody Harris said he would vote. Jared Patterson. Jared Patterson. Both of them said they would vote to ban Democratic chairs. So that's going to be a big fight. Something to watch. We thought that was going to happen this week. It did not. Or last week, now. It did not. So now it's coming Wednesday. Inauguration and

rules. Yeah. Let's talk to you about responses to the burroughs win from members of the cook group we talked about a little bit but tinderholt you mentioned mitch little there are certainly freshmen who are out there talking about this saying hey we're still ready to go to war with several talking to you well the reason they're going to war is because they were elected to go to war yes that's like a mandate to do for sure um and this is in their minds the same in operational purposes speakership is the feeling in speakership, right? That's how they're viewing this is like, same old, same old. We'll see if that ends up being the case. But that is the mindset of a lot of these folks is saying like, okay, the status quo has not changed in the House. And that's what they will object to is that hey it should have um but then you have other members like cody basut who is very much pro-cook one of the negotiators at the at the very front of this advocating for a new speaker and a new contingency among leadership um taking a different tone right

so this is where it will be interesting to see how burroughs navigates this because it's not likely that basut finds himself the good graces of the burroughs camp in a chairmanship position or anything along those lines, but he did take a different approach than some of these other members who are supportive of Cook. Yeah, he congratulated him, he got heat for it, and they asked him, why are you doing that? And he said, decency. He's one of them that wants to build a bridge, mend bridges, and try and make this work as long as it can from their point of view. Like how much unity can there be after a contentious speaker fight like this, right? Unity is a farce. There's no such thing, especially in politics.

It's just how much of a coalition you can build at any given moment. I just remembered we did not mention, I don't think we did the two republican cook to um burroughs harliss and crack harliss and crack so say that for the record um from the first you're talking about who from the first ballot voted for cook and then were republicans who switched i mentioned harliss in the context of flipping from burroughs to cook back in december but not but not in on the actual vote in between ballots, changing his vote. There were two. The rest were Democrats. Yep.

Very good. Mm-hmm. Okay. Do you want to quickly talk about consultants? We're nearing the end here. Yes. So there is a fascinating consultant side of this and lobby side of this. So, you know, the Burough's team mentioned Dennis Bonin.

He was very involved in this election. Now, in his capacity currently, he is a consultant and lobbyist, primarily a lobbyist, operating in Austin. That's what his role is. But he's still very active. Yep. And has a contingency of members who are still in the House or outside the House in the lobby that he works very closely with and is on the phone with all the time yep and so there's that aspect then you have

from a campaign side jordan berry is burroughs's consultant interestingly enough though during this speakership race burroughs brought in jason johnson consultant uh for ted cruz and chip roy i don't know his other clients but there are i'm sure he has others and mitch carney who we mentioned previous podcasts um he was the one behind that text that angered the governor a lot of a lot of layers to that yeah picture the governor m governor. Mitch being Dave Carney's son. Dave Carney is Abbott's big advisor. So there was shuffling around there, and that's a theme that will be, I don't know if we'll find out any more on that, but, you know, that's notable.

Then on the other side, on Cook's side, you had a consultant switch, and this happened way back when. It's been the case for a while. But Cook was a Murphy-Naska client, and he dropped Murphy-Naska and went to Griffin Communications, Elliot Griffin, who had a very good primary and kind of raised to the level of the other guys that had been existing for so long as a consultant. And he came pretty close to having a speaker client of his own. There's a lot of, as always, there's a lot of behind-the-scenes angling

and support being handed out and trying to push the envelope on things. Also, Public Blueprint was big behind Cook, or at least the reform side. Cook ended up winning that. David White. David White, yep. Bonin and his firm, obviously, on the borough side. Because this is such an internal fight, this is not a campaign on the outside.

All of these people have stake in this, both bragging rights, influence for lobbyists, policy implications. If you're in the speaker's good graces, you'll get almost whatever you want, right? Passed through. So that's why this is such an important situation for those insiders. And it is fundamentally an insider election, most notably for the members, if there's anything else. But then you also add to the fact that a lot of these consultants had candidates on both sides of the aisle. Jordan Berry was one of them. He had a lot of, he has a lot of clients, and he had a lot of clients on either side. He's the one mentioned in that way more frequently than anybody else.

Yes. He has a lot of clients, and he had a lot of clients. He's the one mentioned in that way more frequently than anybody else because of the nature of his clients being several of which were very much at the forefront of the Cook camp at the very beginning, part of the reform crew, and giving speeches and nomination speeches on the floor for Cook and Burroughs than being another client of his. So it's a very complex situation. And meanwhile for Griffin, it was a much more straightforward situation because I think all of his clients that ended up winning and are in the house were on Team Cook.

He had Travis Clardy, where he would have fallen, I don't know, on this. But most of his clients were those who ended up becoming contract with Texas. Not all of them, but a lot of them signed the contract with Texas. So that is kind of the underbelly of this whole speaker fight. Yeah. And I think it's a fascinating aspect because... That should be a good fourth reading. Might be.

Could be. Okay. fascinating aspect because that should be a fourth reading might be could be okay well did we beat that horse to death i think so folks if we missed anything or you have questions please please feel free to email editor at the texan um dot news we'll respond yeah but um i think we have talked about this so much and will continue to. Just the cycle changes now. Now the entire framing of everything is speaker and the House and how folks operate within it. Let's, like, a minute long mention the Senate committee assignments. There was only a couple notable things that I saw in that.

Phil King was given the Economic Development Committee, which is new. Then I saw Adam Hinojosa get a vice chairmanship, along with Brent Hagenbue. So Patrick gave both of the incoming Republican freshmen VCs. The new guys? Other than that, there wasn't really much change. All the other chairs are the same from my memory. But what is notable is that last session, even at our kickoff event, I think I asked the Lieutenant Governor, Democratic chairs in the House is a big point of contention

in the Senate. You don't face that criticism often. Now, to be fair, you only have one Democrat in a position of leadership who at the time was John Whitmire, who now is the Mayor of Houston. Whitmire being no longer in the Senate, there is no Democrat chair in the Senate anymore. So that is notable as well. And I think that became the case over the summer, right, when Whitmire, when did he win the local race in May, maybe? I think so. Yeah. So then he replaced Whitmire, I think, with Pete Flores.

So, but yeah, this is the first session that this has been regular session. He was a criminal justice chair. Yeah. Yeah. So, but yeah, this is the first session that this has been regular session. Started a regular session. Because he was a criminal justice chair. Yeah. Yeah. This is the start of the first regular session without a Democratic chair in the Senate. Very interesting. Yeah.

We'll keep an eye on it. Hopefully we'll have House committee assignments sometime in the next few weeks, but it'll take a hot minute. And then we have the State of the State on February 2nd. Yes. House rules on Thursday. Housekeeping resolution on Wednesday. Well, we don't know yet. Oh.

They pushed everything to Wednesday. House rules were originally Wednesday. Then they pushed housekeeping resolution to Wednesday. That's right. And so I haven't heard anything on whether they're pushing rules another day or if they're going to do it all on the same day. Interesting. We'll have to find out.

We'll find out. Well, Bradley, well done. Get some sleep this weekend. I will try. I will try. Do your best. Folks, thanks for listening to all of our blathering on another episode of Smoke-Filled Room,

and we'll catch you next time.