Far-Right Republicans Re-Write The "Southern Manifesto," Call It A Contract

The Conservative Coup: Rewriting the rules of Texan democracy.

Today, 13 far-right Republicans (8 who haven’t even been elected yet) published a document, which they are calling “Contract With Texas.” However, the “contract” is an anti-democratic blueprint that will reform the Texas House to completely silence the minority party (Democrats) and silence the voices of millions of Texans.

The contract isn’t only a statement of intent. It’s an assertion of “Conservative values” and aims to consolidate Republican power in the House and significantly reshape the legislative process. This so-called “contract” will sideline voices, diminish bipartisan cooperation, and advance ideology that conflicts with Texas’s changing demographics.

Here is the “Contract With Texas:”

As Texas grapples with its political identity and future, the “Contract with Texas” is a testament to the enduring struggle over the soul of one of America’s most politically influential states. The purpose of this contract is to fracture an already divided landscape and elevate white supremacy, the patriarchy, and Christian Nationalism.

Each point on this contract is anti-democratic and will harm the people of Texas.

The current makeup of the Texas House of Representatives is 86(R)/64(D). However, we should expect it to be closer to 80(R)/70(D) after November. Even if it didn’t shift after this next election, Democrats still make up 42% of the Texas House—nearly half. It’s important to remember that. Let’s discuss their points.

Only solicit support for speakership for Republican members.

This would exclude Democrats from the decision-making process for selecting the House Speaker, effectively sidelining half of Texas’s population’s elected representation. In addition, the only reason Democrats have voted for a Republican speaker in the past was that, with Republicans in the majority, Democrats have voted for speakers who would act bipartisanly.

The House Speaker needs 76 votes to get elected. As fractured as the Republican Party is, they will not agree to one person who will get the 76 votes they need to succeed. They will need Democratic votes to elect a speaker, and Democrats will only vote for a Speaker willing to act bipartisanly.

End the practice of awarding Democrats with committee chairmanship.

By restricting leadership roles to Republicans, it minimizes the influence of Democratic representatives and their ability to shape legislation. Not only does it stifle Democratic voices in this state, but it also stifles Black, Hispanic, and AAPI priorities.

Ensure all GOP legislative priorities receive a floor vote before any Democrat bills.

This would ensure that a Democratic priority never is again passed in Texas, even when the priority is something meant to help millions of Texans, like infrastructure, healthcare, or emergency management.

Plus, have you ever read the GOP priorities? Last year, one of their priorities was to “make an electoral college” for Texas, allowing each county only one vote for state elections based on the county’s vote. Considering 83% of Texas’ population lives in only a handful of counties, this would disproportionately give power to a small minority.

Replace current liberal Parliamentarians with staff committed to offering advice only on adhering to House rules, not advancing their personal ideology.

The replacement of staff perceived as liberal with those aligned strictly with Republican ideology suggests a move towards a more homogenous and less diverse legislative advisory body.

The far-right was angry at a Parliamentarian for following the House rules and blamed him for following the rules because he used to work in the Obama administration. They want people who will break the rules. They want dishonesty and corruption, which they agree is most likely to come from the Republican camp.

Limit the Speaker to two terms to reduce their power over individual members.

While this may seem like a democratic measure, in the context of the other points, it will also ensure a consistent rotation of leadership that aligns with the party’s prevailing ideology.

Ensure there are no longer any Democrat-majority committees.

Democrat-majority committees might better reflect the demographic diversity of Texas. Disbanding them would result in a lack of representation for minority views and interests.

At the very core of this, you have to remember that Texas is nearly a 50/50 state, and the majority of Black, brown, and AAPI votes go toward Democrats. The far-right will tell you that silencing Democratic voices is about Conservatism. It’s really about white supremacy and making sure that people of color in this state do not have a voice.

Requiring only substantial adherence to House rules will stop parliamentary abuse and prevent hyper-technical points of order from killing good legislation.

This will be used to override procedural objections, which are often the minority party’s (Democrats) last line of defense. During most Legislative Sessions, Republicans write bills that break House rules and go against the Texas and US constitutions. Democrats would call “Points of Order,” killing the bills because they broke the rules.

The Republicans assert that legislation should be passed even when it breaks the rules or goes against the Constitution. This basically throws all of the legislative rules out the window.

Start substantive work as soon as the Session begins to end delays that kill priority legislation.

Prioritizing certain legislation will push through the far-right’s agenda while sidelining other issues that may be important to a broader cross-section of Texans. Again, it’s about silencing the voices of millions of Texans.

All of these points show a concerted effort to centralize power within the far-right and reduce the influence of Democratic legislators.

These measures would make a legislative body less representative of the state’s demographics, further polarizing the political landscape. The “Contract with Texas” is a calculated roadmap to entrench a single ideological perspective at the expense of democratic principles.

The contract, by design, is set to engineer a power structure within the Texas House that mirrors an echo chamber, resonating with only one political frequency—that of the far right.

This endeavor reflects Republicans’ profound misunderstanding of democracy, which, at its core, is governance by the people, for the people. Democracy is about the harmonization of diverse voices, not the amplification of a singular chorus. In a state as varied and dynamic as Texas, where the electorate’s hues are as diverse as the state’s vast landscapes, democracy demands representation that mirrors this multifaceted populace.

Democracy thrives on debate, dissent, and the compromise born from these. It’s a delicate dance of give-and-take, where the minority’s voice is a vital counterbalance to the majority’s power. By sidelining Democratic representatives and their constituents, the “Contract with Texas” is attempting to silence critical voices in this dialogue. These voices represent nearly half of Texas’ political heart and soul.

How does the Contract with Texas echo the Southern Manifesto?

The Southern Manifesto and the Contract with Texas are reactions to legislative actions that the signatories perceive as overreaching. The Southern Manifesto reacted to the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision. At the same time, the Contract with Texas responds to what its signatories see as overreach from the House Republican leadership and a departure from conservative principles.

Each document strongly prefers state or local control, opposing what is seen as an intrusion by a central authority. The Southern Manifesto defended states’ rights against federal judicial intervention, while the Contract with Texas seeks to assert the dominance of state governance and Republican ideological control in Texas.

Both documents invoke the Constitution to support their positions. The Southern Manifesto argues for constitutional originalism, stating that the Supreme Court’s decision was not consistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers or the Constitution. The Contract with Texas implies a commitment to constitutional Conservatism as a guiding principle for governance.

The signatories of both documents express a desire to resist changes they find objectionable. The Southern Manifesto signatories wanted to resist the desegregation mandated by the Supreme Court, while the Contract with Texas signatories aim to resist changes within the legislative process that would move away from their conservative values.

Both documents value upholding traditional values and established norms. The Southern Manifesto appealed to historical precedents regarding segregation, while the Contract with Texas aims to preserve and solidify traditional conservative leadership within the Texas legislature.

The documents share a call for political and ideological purity within their ranks. The Southern Manifesto rallied against integration, seeking to maintain the status quo of racial segregation, and the Contract with Texas outlines a vision for the Texas House that would concentrate leadership strictly among Republicans.

Like the Southern Manifesto, the Contract with Texas is a rallying cry for the far-right, grounded in certain interpretations of constitutional values and resisting ideological shifts that the authors perceive as threats to their preferred order.

The “Contract with Texas” is a profoundly divisive document.

Its aspirations, mirroring the exclusionary tactics of the Southern Manifesto, threaten to unravel the democratic fabric of Texas governance, a fabric woven from the myriad threads of its diverse population.

The contract’s stark deviation from the principles of inclusive democracy to a narrower vision of conservative hegemony is a disservice to the spirit of Texas—a state renowned for its size and diversity, where the battle for equality and representation has long been a defining feature of its history.

Democracy, at its best, represents the entire spectrum of voices and ensures that even in the face of majority rule, the minority is heard, respected, and considered. When any document, be it a manifesto or a contract, sets out to systematically dismantle this foundational tenet, it is the duty of every Texan to question, challenge, and demand a political process that remains true to the democratic ideals upon which their state—and the nation—was built.

Important 2024 primary RUNOFF election days:

• April 29, 2024: Last day to register to vote.

• May 17, 2024: Last day to apply by mail

• May 20, 2024: First day of early voting.

• May 24, 2024: Last day of early voting.

• May 28, 2024: Last day to receive a ballot by mail.

• May 28, 2024: Election day.

LoneStarLeft’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Follow me on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Threads, YouTube, and Instagram.