I mean, it had to be bipartisan to pass in the Lege, but let’s keep that in mind as the debate continues.
After 42 years in the Texas House, Rep. Senfronia Thompson has earned a nickname – “Miz T” – that evokes equal parts respect, affection and fear. When she filed the Texas version of the Lilly Ledbetter Act to promote equal pay last session, “Miz T” called some old friends at the Texas Civil Justice League, a business group dedicating to fighting lawsuit abuse, and drafted them as allies.
Aided by the group’s credibility with conservatives – and by the force of her own personality – the Houston Democrat gained bipartisan support for the measure and it narrowly passed, although her efforts eventually fell victim to Gov. Rick Perry’s veto pen.
Now, the issue has resurfaced in the Texas governor’s race, with Republican nominee Greg Abbott saying he would veto the bill if it is passed again. His comments drew a rebuke from Democratic nominee Wendy Davis, who had sponsored the bill in the Texas Senate.
The GOP candidates for lieutenant governor also jumped into the fray this week. Incumbent David Dewhurst tweeted that Davis’ bill would have “unleashed torrents of lawsuits,” while his challenger, Houston Sen. Dan Patrick, said the government should stay out of the issue.
Some political observers, however, say conservatives may be having a knee-jerk reaction against the Lilly Ledbetter legislation simply because it was championed by President Barack Obama, and Davis, a rising Texas Democratic star. The policy it advances is not that controversial, they argue.
The vote favoring the bill “can absolutely be defended on conservative grounds,” says TCJL general counsel George Christian, whose group helped win passage of Thompson’s bill. “I would urge stepping back and taking another look.”
Lisa Maatz, vice president for government relations for the American Association of University Women, called Dewhurst’s claim that the law would unleash a torrent of lawsuits “a tired argument.” The predicted “torrent” has not occurred since the federal bill was signed into law in 2009, she said.
Emphasis mine. I think there’s a lot to this; we’ve all seen how a health care law that had its genesis in the Heritage Foundation has become synonymous with socialism. The question is whether people who once crossed the aisle to support it will continue to do so or if they’ll be swayed back by partisan considerations. The original bill passed by a 78-61 margin in the House after being amended in the Senate. Here’s the record vote of the House concurrence of the Senate changes. In addition to 53 Democrats (Anchia and Burnam were absent), these Republicans voted for final passage:
Anderson; Aycock; Bohac; Crownover; Dale; Darby; Davis, S.; Geren; Harless; Huberty; King, S.; Kuempel; Lozano; Otto; Patrick; Ratliff; Riddle; Ritter; Sheffield, J.; Sheffield, R.; Smith; Villabla; Workman; Zerwas
Some of these folks are not coming back – Pitts retired, while Patrick, Ratliff, and Ralph Sheffield all lost primaries. That might make passage in the House trickier when it comes up again in 2015; of the No votes, only Linda Harper-Brown and Stefani Carter, both of whom are in primary runoffs, might get replaced by a Democrat, while the retiring Craig Eiland could be replaced by a no-voting Republican. Lord only knows what might happen in the Senate, too, but the point is that we need to keep an eye on the overall attitudes. As with evangelicals and contraception, attitudes do change. We should keep track of that and note when they do change, so we can remind ourselves that it wasn’t always this way.