House vote strengthens
McCoy, hurts tort reform

By Staff
Terry Cassreino / assistant managing editor
March 7, 2004
What looked at first like a routine vote by state House members last week could in the long run help solidify the power base of first term Speaker Billy McCoy, D-Rienzi.
The vote to change rules by which the House operates on a daily basis also could have dire consequences for such high-profile issues as civil justice reform and state finances.
So what exactly happened?
It's simple: House members decided to require a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority to withdraw legislative proposals from a committee that otherwise would have left it for dead.
Like I said, on face value this appeared to be a routine, innocuous move a tweaking, if you will, of internal procedural House rules.
But wait. There's more to the story.
House revolt
Flash back to 1987.
The House was under the rule of Speaker C.B. "Buddie" Newman. After seeing Newman repeatedly thwart popular legislation such as mandatory kindergartens, some lawmakers decided they'd had enough.
That led to an historic revolt and the revamping of internal rules, which included a two-term limit on the person serving as speaker and a simple majority to withdraw bills from hostile committees.
The end goal was to make the state House more democratic and not leave the speaker as an all-powerful dictator who could use his stature to single-handedly kill legislation at will.
Newman, who naturally opposed the move, retired from the Legislature. The following year, in January 1988, Rep. Tim Ford, D-Tupelo, was elected speaker.
Ford at first supported the new rules. Later, he had a change of heart and backed the repeal of the two-term limit the first step in dismantling the reforms.
McCoy takes over
Ford ultimately served 16 years as speaker. And even though he was never thought of in the same vein as Newman, there was no mistaking who was in charge of the state House.
Flash forward to 2004.
McCoy was not Ford's pick as his successor, yet the longtime legislator from Rienzi was a popular choice to take over the House's top post. McCoy campaigned for the job for more than a year.
Among his backers were some of the same lawmakers who helped usher in the 1987 reforms. Some of those lawmakers today back changes to civil justice laws and state spending practices.
But now with a key procedural rule change suddenly forced through the House lawmakers may not have a chance to consider any proposals if they don't have the support of the speaker.
McCoy likely has enough sway over lawmakers to ensure a bill, no matter how popular, doesn't get the two-thirds support needed to remove it from a hostile committee and placed to a vote in the full House.
What's next
Some lawmakers, including those who backed McCoy as speaker, say privately they wonder what he will do next particularly in light of both a rules change and the passage of a bill to raise $17.6 million in fees.
While most proposals take weeks to move through the House or Senate, the fee increase proposal zipped through a House committee and then the full House in just four days.
To top it off, no one in the House was allowed to amend the proposal a bill that would, among other things, raise vanity car tags $5, increase state auditor fees and place a 40 cent-a-pack tax on some cigarettes.
And now, one week later, the rules change. That one move alone could make it practically impossible for civil justice reform to clear the House; chances are good those proposals will die in committee.
One civil justice reform bill has at least 59 co-sponsors, but is expected to die in the House Judiciary A Committee. Without the rules change, 62 House members could have voted to withdraw it from committee.
Now, it will need 82.