The current Texas House Speaker race has exposed a major problem that Republicans must confront head-on. While leadership races are often contentious, the willingness of a faction of the House Republican Caucus to violate rules and ignore the party platform and principles to gain power has eroded trust within the caucus to the point where it is on the edge of illegitimacy.
The 88th Session: Weakening of the Caucus
In the 87th Session, the House Republican Caucus met frequently to coordinate major legislation. Those meetings ensured we all understood the bills and kept us all on the same page working as a true team, helping us pass major property tax relief and constitutional carry legislation among others.
In the 88th session, however, that changed. The caucus leadership barely called meetings, no real effort was made to educate members on legislation, and there was no cohesive sense of team among the members. This was exemplified by the fact that three members chose to break from the caucus’s chosen speaker candidate, and even more would go on to disregard caucus rules and work against Republican members of the House in the March 2024 primary.
In both situations, the caucus chair took little to no corrective action against those who broke the rules, leaving a perception with many members of the caucus that rules don’t matter when they are violated by members of the chairman’s faction.
The September Meeting: Sowing Division
On September 27th in violation of established rules, a faction of the Republican Caucus met in secret, excluding nearly half of the caucus. By doing so, it not only deepened existing divides but also sowed the seeds for the chaos that erupted months later.
The goals of the meeting were both ambitious and troubling:
● Secretive Endorsement of a Speaker Candidate: Rather than allowing all speaker candidates to present their vision to the entire caucus, the faction aimed to unilaterally decide on a candidate in private, in an attempt to predetermine the result of the December caucus meeting for David Cook.
● Preventing Public Input: Not only were members kept out of the meeting, but grassroots activists and the press were kept out as well, holding the meeting on private property so that no one else could influence the attending members.
● Pledge Enforcement: Members in attendance were pressured to commit their support to the faction’s chosen candidate, not only violating longstanding reforms fought for by conservatives and placed into the party platform, but also discouraging new speaker candidates from jumping into the race before the December meeting.
● Circumventing Republican Principles: Alarmingly, this process included proxy voting, where invited members who did not attend were allowed to have a present member vote on their behalf, a process strictly forbidden by the caucus rules and against every measure of election integrity Republicans have pursued.
These violations raise fundamental questions about the legitimacy of the endorsement process. A speaker’s election should reflect the will of the entire caucus—not be predetermined behind closed doors.
The Fallout: Chaos on December 7
At the December meeting, it became clear that the process was compromised. The caucus chair, despite endorsing Rep. David Cook and participating in the September meeting, failed to recuse himself from running the proceedings. When members supporting Rep. Dustin Burrows requested a brief recess to discuss next steps, the faction aligned with Cook denied the request, prompting many members to leave in protest. The caucus chair, undeterred by the walkout, proceeded with a third vote, and even then, Rep. Cook failed to secure even one more vote.
The only way Rep. Cook was able to win the third vote was not by persuading members that he was the best choice, but by showing members that the process was rigged to serve a predetermined outcome by a group who was willing to violate every tenant of the caucus rules.
Not only had their September meeting made a mockery of the rules by not including all members, using pledge cards, and allowing proxy voting, but the Chairman of the caucus, Rep. Tom Oliverson, also made it clear that the rules only mattered if his preferred candidate won.
The Caucus rules state clearly that the “Endorsed Speaker Candidate shall be the person whom members of the caucus should vote in favor of for the next Speaker of the House”. “Should”, not “must”. It is suggestive and not binding. This is clear from the actions of Chairman Oliverson and Rep. Tinderholt in their own races for Speaker.
When Rep. Oliverson announced his own run for Speaker in March of 2024, he declared that, should Dade Phelan win the nomination of the caucus, he would take his challenge to the floor in defiance of the rule. Likewise, when Speaker Phelan won the nomination of the caucus for the 2023 session, Rep. Tony Tinderholt took his race for speaker to the floor he received no punishment or even reprimand from the caucus.
Additionally, even though they have endorsed Rep. Cook, Rep. Oliverson and the other candidates for speaker who attended the September meeting have yet to officially withdraw their name from contention for Speaker of the House, and they remain candidates at time of writing.
Ultimately, the most important vote in the Speaker race is not the caucus’s endorsement but the election that will take place on January 14, 2025, when the House convenes. The Texas Constitution is clear: a speaker is chosen by a majority of the 150 House members. This pivotal vote—requiring at least 76 supporters—is the definitive expression of legislative will and the mechanism for organizing the House to conduct the people’s business.
The focus should remain on this constitutional mandate. Efforts to preempt or manipulate the outcome within the caucus only distract from the goal of electing a speaker who can effectively lead the House and address the priorities of Texans.
I have seen the great things the Texas House Republican Caucus can accomplish when it is unified, but unity doesn’t come from forcing everyone to follow whoever can twist and manipulate the process to serve their own power. Accomplishing our Republican Legislative Priorities requires the caucus to come together as one, and unifying the caucus will require a restoration of faith that all voices are being heard and that the rules are being applied fairly.
Terry M. Wilson
Colonel, USA, Ret.
Texas House of Representatives