So the Gossips hear that Speaker Craddick has decided that he will propose that the vote for Speaker will be by roll call, but that procedure will have to be voted on by the members. Hum, that might just be the first indication that the Speaker does not have the votes. But then if you vote against the roll call you can be lobbied by the lobby and the Speaker to vote for the Speaker. The Quorum Reports says " the vote for speaker will be a roll call vote. That means that votes by Zedler and Zerwas are more important than votes by Anderson and Anchia. It also means that false impressions about the trends of the House can cause votes to switch as the vote is taking place".

"The last time the House had a contested speaker vote on the floor was in 1975 pitting Carl Parker against Billy Clayton. The members submitted signed ballots in a box at the front of the hall as their name was read out during a roll call. After the ballots were cast, the results were tallied and announced and the votes were made public"

If this is the decision that Craddick has made then he has sent a strong message that he is not dropping his dictatorial way of running the Texas House.

The Gossip was there in 1975 and watched that vote. No one really knew who was voting for whom and that is the way it should be. Parker said after he lost the vote that adding up those who told him afterwards that they voted for him he should have become the Speaker, but of course he did not. But at least Billy Clayton did not have a list of enemies that he could use to make his decision on appointments to committees. So, his appointments reflected his view of who would do a good job regardless of whom they may have voted for for Speaker. If you want to change the climate in the House you might just want to reject the roll call vote suggestion.