Hey, Craddick, Recognize THIS!

The Quorum Report providess a response from Speaker Craddick's office to reports that two House chairs are seeking a formal Attorney General opinion on whether the Speaker may be removed from office during the pendency of his term. I think Craddick's allies have already given up on the argument that he's a constitutional officer, and thus subject to removal only by impeachment.

What's left is the argument that, as Speaker, Craddick has absolute and non-appealable authority to recognize a member for a motion -- or not. Craddick and his supporters have endlessly repeated the excerpt from the rules to that effect, as Alexis DeLee does below in his statement:

June 18, 2007 4:09 PM
SPEAKERS OFFICE RESPONDS TO KEFFER/COOK REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
We reprint the response in full, below:
Alexis DeLee, press secretary for Speaker Tom Craddick, released the following statement in response to Reps. Keffer and Cook's announcement that they are seeking an Advisory Opinion from Attorney General Greg Abbot [sic]:
"Speaker Craddick welcomes a review by the Attorney General. During the closing days of the session, Speaker Craddick sought the opinions of constitutional law and rules experts, and the advice was instrumental in the Speaker’s decision to move forward with the business of the session.
"The rules of the Texas House of Representatives do not provide for a motion to conduct a Speaker's race in the midst of a session’s business. Furthermore, the rules are clear with regard to the Speaker’s power of recognition.*
"Speaker Craddick acted correctly under the House Rules, the Texas Constitution, and was consistent with traditions of parliamentary practice. But more importantly, the citizens of this state were well-served in that the important business of the legislature prevailed over the internal politics of a speaker’s race."
*House Rule 1, Section 9 reads, "Responses to parliamentary inquiries and decisions of recognition made by the chair may not be appealed." House Rule 5, Section 24 reads, "There shall be no appeal from the speaker’s recognition….[the speaker decides] if recognition is to be granted."
Copyright June 18, 2007 by Harvey Kronberg, www.quorumreport.com, All rights are reserved.

They love to quote House Rule 5, Section 24 with its "no appeal from the speaker's recognition" language, but they always leave out the last part of that sentence. The complete sentence reads, "There shall be no appeal from the speaker’s recognition, but the speaker shall be governed by rules and usage in priority of entertaining motions from the floor." (Emphasis added for obvious reasons.)

Maybe Craddick's copy of the rules does not contain the complete sentence ...