“Both literally and metaphorically, Texas House Speakers live at the center of the state’s political universe.” So begins “The House Will Come to Order: How the Texas Speaker Became a Power in State and National Politics,” a new book from University of Texas Press that tracks the evolution of the office of the speaker of the Texas House of Representatives from 1846 to today — from what authors Patrick L. Cox and Michael Phillips call “the presiding speakership” of the 19th century to “the executive speakership” of the past 35 years.
It perhaps will surprise most readers to learn that the speaker of the Texas House wasn’t always the powerful figure in state government that he is today. Until Coke Stevenson controversially bucked precedent in the 1930s, no Texas speaker led consecutive legislative sessions. Speakers in the 19th century and through the Progressive Era of the early 20th century would preside over a session, then step aside so one of their colleagues could take his turn running the show next time. But since World War II, as Texas became more urban and its population grew and became more diverse, and as state government expanded to match the increasingly complex demands placed on it, the power of the office of Texas speaker has grown to match — and at times exceed — the power and influence of the lieutenant governor and governor.
Cox and Phillips will sign copies of “The House Will Come to Order” this evening during a book launch at Scholz Beer Garten, 1607 San Jacinto Blvd. The gathering is hosted by UT’s Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, where Cox is associate director. More information can be found at the center’s Web site.
I recently spoke with Cox (right) about his book, which developed out of an oral history project he and Phillips, a history professor at Collin College in Plano, started in 2004 when they began interviewing nine former speakers and then-Speaker Tom Craddick. Here’s an edited excerpt of my interview with Cox:
What were some of the key social changes in the state that increased the importance and power of the speaker?
Texas was primarily a Southern state both in culture and politics. It evolved through the 20th century to become a much more diverse, urbanized and industrialized state. The demands on state government and state services changed as the state’s economy and population expanded. And we moved from being a small-government state with limited services to one that now, at least arguably speaking, provides more services and more regulation and more investment in, for example, education — although one can also argue that we’re still, by many measures, behind the national average.
What were some of the key institutional changes in the House that led to a stronger speakership?
One is the power of the speaker over a number of the administrative tasks associated with the House, and by administrative tasks, I just mean the day-to-day operations and running of the House and even the Capitol itself. The second thing is the expansion of committees, and the speaker’s power of assigning committee chairs and people to committees, both during the session and during the interim, because there are many more interim studies and committees that take place in this modern era. The essence is that the speaker is really part of the triumvirate now that presides over state government: the speaker, the lieutenant governor and the governor.
What are some qualities speakers must possess?
They have to have the political acumen to read the House membership, and not just what’s going on in the House of Representatives, but also how to interact with the governor and the Senate and lieutenant governor. I also think the modern speaker has to have a media presence; they have to be media savvy, because we’re in a very media-conscious age and the speaker has to have the ability to communicate their views and their positions.
Do you have a favorite speaker or does one stand out in importance?
I don’t think there’s one in particular. Perhaps Speaker (Pete) Laney was among the most successful in dealing with a very diverse agenda. But then I also look at Gib Lewis, who was speaker when the state was dealing with a number difficult issues — education, state finance, and growth of state government — and some challenging economic times back in the ’80s. Then there’s one of the earlier speakers, Reuben Senterfitt back in the ’50s. He only served a couple of terms but he was the first modern-era speaker to recognize the need to improve House administration and organization. He also was one of the first speakers to stand up and take the lead on policy initiatives in advance of the governor and lieutenant governor, and he really set a number of important precedents in that regard.
What was an important thing that you learned from the oral history project?
The one theme that consistently ran through the interviews was the acknowledgement that whoever was speaker, regardless of their politics, they always said they had to be a speaker who kept their finger on the pulse of the membership and as soon as they got too far away from that is when things went askew. The speaker really has to have a sense of the people who are there in the House. Speakers have their own agendas but they also have to have the sense of the multiple agendas and personalities in the House.
What does the future of the speakership look like?
It continues to expand. The influence of the speaker will continue to grow.