Some people argue that Texas should have a full-time legislature that meets annually to deal with the state's issues.

Question

Some people argue that Texas should have a full-time legislature that meets annually to deal with the state's issues. What is your take on this? Give some advantages and disadvantages of your position.

Your Discussion response must be composed of a minimum of 250 relevant, responsive, and complete words

Answer 1

Texas' legislature is considered a hybrid legislature, meaning that legislators spend some time working at the Capitol but are neither paid enough nor work enough days to make politics their full-time career; the legislature currently meets for 140 days every 2 years, assuming that the Governor does not call a special session. As such, proponents of expanding the legislative session often argue that:

1. The state's problems are myriad and require more attention from lawmakers that can't otherwise be given in a shorter session.
2. Bills are often rushed in a shorter session. Currently, the only legislative necessity is to pass a budget. A longer session will allow more time to consider legislation.
3. Longer sessions mean better salaries, which will allow for more diverse representation since a part-time legislature tends to favor wealthier individuals in high-end occupations who can afford to take time off work.

Arguments against:

1. More time spent in districts instead of the Capitol.
2. Less time means bills are less likely to be kicked to the curb, which often happens with full-time legislatures.
3. Texas has a history of small government. It's cheaper to have a part-time legislature in the form of lower salaries and less staff.