The race for Speaker of the Texas House, culminating in Representative Dustin Burrows’ (R-Lubbock) victory, was a saga of internal strife, ideological rifts, and political maneuvering. What should have been a calculated and routine transition of leadership instead turned into a dramatic and very public power struggle, with far-reaching implications for Texas politics.
For over a year, the House was consumed by infighting. Members clashed over ideology, tactics, and personal ambitions, while external forces—activists, political action committees (PACs), and grassroots movements—pushed and pulled lawmakers like chess pieces in a high-stakes game. This bruising contest exposed deep divisions within the Texas Republican Party, where no single faction held an uncontested grip on power.
A Shifting Battlefield
The struggle began when Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont), facing growing dissatisfaction, announced his withdrawal from the speaker race in December 2024. Phelan’s tenure had seen increasing opposition from conservative factions, whose growing influence made his re-election a near-impossibility. Central to the opposition was the Texas Freedom Caucus and the self-proclaimed “reform group,” whose collective aim was to overhaul the way the House operated—starting with Phelan’s removal.
By the time Phelan bowed out, the anti-Phelan forces had coalesced around state Rep. David Cook (R-Mansfield). Cook emerged as the reform candidate after a contentious September meeting where competing factions settled their differences through multiple rounds of voting. His ascent marked a critical turning point in the fight for control, but his position was never secure. Burrows, a former Phelan ally and chair of the powerful Calendars Committee, quickly became the leading alternative.
Money and Influence: A Campaign Like Never Before
The contest for speaker took on an intensity unprecedented in Texas politics. Super PACs, activist groups, and high-profile donors turned the fight into a proxy war over the future of Republican governance in the state. Groups like the American Opportunity PAC (aligned with Burrows) and the Texans United for a Conservative Majority (backing Cook) flooded the airwaves, digital platforms, and mailboxes with ads and messaging.
The sheer scale of spending underscored the stakes. Burrows raised $1.3 million in the final months of 2024, with 60% coming after his entry into the race. Cook’s comparatively modest haul of $188,000 reflected the challenge of competing against Burrows’ broader coalition of donors and influencers. External groups added further fuel to the fire, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on targeted texts, mailers, and social media campaigns aimed at swaying lawmakers and public opinion.
Among the most significant players were wealthy donors like Tim Dunn, whose Texas Conservative Project PAC contributed heavily to pro-Cook efforts, and Alex Fairly, who established the Texas Republican Leadership Fund with an eye-popping $20 million war chest. Though Fairly’s fund initially seemed poised to punish members who didn’t align with Cook, it later pivoted to a more neutral stance.
Factionalism and Fractures
The race also highlighted sharp divisions within the Republican caucus. On one side stood Cook and his allies, who championed reform and aligned with the Freedom Caucus’ vision of a more ideologically pure House. On the other side was Burrows, whose coalition included a mix of traditional conservatives, pragmatists, and lawmakers weary of the endless infighting.
This dynamic was further complicated by the participation of Democrats, who held enough seats to tip the balance in favor of one candidate or the other. While the Democratic caucus initially leaned toward Cook, Burrows eventually garnered critical support from 12 Democrats on the final ballot. This cross-party backing came despite Burrows’ alignment with staunchly conservative priorities like school choice, which many Democrats oppose.
A Walkout and Its Fallout
One of the most dramatic moments came during the December caucus meeting to endorse a candidate. As tensions ran high, Burrows’ supporters staged a walkout during the second round of voting, citing procedural disputes. The maneuver left the caucus fractured, with Cook emerging as the official nominee after a 48-14 vote. However, the endorsement failed to unify the party. Many Burrows supporters refused to recognize Cook as the legitimate candidate, and the discord spilled onto the House floor when the full chamber convened to elect the speaker.
The Final Showdown
On opening day, the divisions that had defined the speaker race were on full display. Burrows entered the chamber with the slimmest of majorities—just enough commitments to secure victory if everything held. Cook, meanwhile, sought to flip wavering Republicans and attract additional Democratic support.
The nominating speeches captured the stakes of the moment. Burrows’ allies emphasized the need for an “independent House,” free from the influence of outside groups. Cook’s supporters, by contrast, framed him as a unifying figure who could move the chamber beyond its recent turmoil.
In the end, Burrows’ strategy paid off. He secured 76 votes on the first ballot, exceeding the threshold for victory by nine in the second round. Critical flips from Cook supporters, including influential lawmakers like state Reps. Brad Buckley and Tom Craddick, sealed the deal. Burrows’ triumph was cemented by the support of key Democrats, who saw him as a better alternative than Cook despite ideological differences.
Implications for the Future
Burrows’ victory marks a turning point for the Texas House. As speaker, he inherits a chamber deeply divided along ideological and procedural lines. His leadership will likely be tested early and often, particularly on contentious issues like school choice, committee appointments, and House-Senate relations.
The speaker race also serves as a cautionary tale about the growing role of money and external influence in legislative politics. What was once an “inside baseball” process is now a high-profile battleground, with far-reaching implications for policymaking and party unity.
0 Comments