Ballot Language:

The constitutional amendment to require that a record vote be taken by a house of the legislature on final passage of any bill, other than certain local bills, of a resolution proposing or ratifying a constitutional amendment, or of any other nonceremonial resolution, and to provide for public access on the Internet to those record votes.

HJR-19 History

This amendment is an attempt to bring more light upon the voting records of individual legislators, requiring not only a vote on final passage of a bill but that the votes be made easily accessible via the Internet. From the House Research Organization Focus Report:

Proposition 11 would amend Art. 3, sec. 12 to require that a vote taken in either house of the Legislature be by record vote if it were on final passage of:

• a bill;
• a resolution proposing or ratifying a constitutional amendment; or
• any other resolution, other than a resolution of a purely ceremonial or honorary nature.

A vote on final passage would mean a vote on:

• third reading;
• second reading, if the applicable house suspended or otherwise dispensed with the requirement for three readings;
• whether to concur in the amendments of the other house; or
• whether to adopt a conference committee report.

The resolution’s Fiscal Note estimates that it will cost taxpayers $47,745 per session.

The Dallas Morning News is for the amendment:

Responding to calls for reform, lawmakers have taken steps in recent years toward more open government. House members, for example, adopted new internal rules this year calling for mandatory record votes on final passage of bills. Lawmakers also have made it easier for colleagues to demand a roll-call vote at any step in the process, such as on amendments or preliminary bill passage. The legislative Web site, Texas Legislature Online (www.capitol.state.tx.us), has developed useful links to lawmakers’ votes in detailing a bill’s history.

Internal House or Senate rules lack the force of a constitutional imperative, however. Members in future sessions could amend their own rules, shortchanging the official record of the public’s business.

BigJolly says: On the surface, it looks great. Lawmaker accountability is something we truly need and the Internet access portion is wonderful. But after reading the arguments for and against around the state, I’m voting against it.

I think it doesn’t go far enough and provides cover for the politicians activities where it counts, the preliminary votes and procedural moves. If this becomes law, I’m afraid that real reform will be harder to achieve in the future.

Click to read comments for and against.

From the Texas Legislative Council Summary (note: 131 page pdf file):

Comments by Supporters: The passage of important or even routine legislation by voice vote or other non-record vote deprives the public of the right to know how its elected representatives stand on that legislation. Voting on legislation is the most important official action a legislator takes. Legislators cannot be held fully accountable by the voters of their districts if their votes on legislation are not fully recorded and made readily available for public scrutiny. Even when record votes are taken, finding those votes in the house and senate journals requires tedious research that is difficult even for an expert. The proposed amendment would ensure that every legislator’s complete voting record on bills and proposed constitutional amendments is a matter of public record and is readily available on the Internet to all interested persons.

While both houses have significantly strengthened their rules in recent sessions to provide for more record votes, those rules could be weakened by future legislatures. In addition, while bills to require record votes by
statute have been considered by the legislature in recent sessions, under the Texas Constitution either house of the legislature could undermine the effectiveness of such a statute by providing for exceptions under the rules of that house. Only a constitutional amendment can assure that the proposed record vote requirements will remain in effect permanently.

Similarly, while the house and senate journals and the other information currently maintained on the Internet by the legislature for every bill and resolution show the votes cast by each legislator on every record vote,
the proposed amendment will ensure that each record vote on a bill or substantive resolution will be made accessible to the public and maintained on the Internet for at least two years, so that the voters may easily access that information, particularly during the next election cycle. In addition, requiring that record votes be made available according to the subject of each bill or resolution will allow a member of the public to look up a legislator’s voting record on a topic of particular interest to that person without having to first do the tedious research necessary to identify those particular bills and resolutions by their assigned numbers.

Comments by Opponents: Many of the most important legislative actions on a bill or resolution take place before the final vote on the measure occurs, as the scope and details of the measure are being debated and developed. The proposed amendment is insufficient because it fails to require the recording of all votes on preliminary approval, or second reading, of a bill or resolution, which is arguably the most critical phase in the passage of legislation, as well as votes on amendments, substitutes, and critical procedural decisions such as a motion to table or postpone a bill or to take a bill up out of its regular order. Failure to require record votes on amendments and other motions other than final passage deprives the voters of critical information when a record vote is not specifically requested on the motion. Adoption of the proposed amendment, which is limited to record votes on final passage of a bill or resolution, may
make it difficult to generate future interest in a more complete record vote requirement.

The proposed amendment would allow each house to grant an exception to the record vote requirement on fi nal passage of local bills. However, local bills, such as those creating or affecting special districts, are extremely important to the affected locale. There is no compelling reason to allow either house to pass local bills without recording each member’s vote.

The proposed amendment is largely unnecessary because most votes taken on final passage are record votes already, and under current rules a single house member or three senators can require a record vote on any matter. In addition, holding a record vote on an uncontroversial bill can unnecessarily delay the proceedings of a house. Including record votes on uncontroversial bills in the journals or on the Internet does not provide any meaningful information to the public.