The first calendar day of the 89th Texas Legislative Session started with a bang, featuring intense debates, key votes, and even a motion to vacate the chair—a rare procedural move aimed at removing the Speaker of the House.
What Happened?
As the House gaveled in, State Rep. Brian Harrison (R-Midlothian) wasted no time challenging Speaker Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock) with a series of parliamentary inquiries. His questioning quickly escalated to an attempt to remove Burrows from his leadership position by moving to vacate the chair.
This motion is rarely used and, even when threatened, is almost never successful. But it does serve as a political tool—one that can put pressure on House leadership and signal internal party disagreements.
The Motion to Vacate: How It Works
Under Texas House rules, a motion to remove the speaker is considered a privileged motion, meaning it only requires a single member to initiate. However, there’s a key hurdle:
If the speaker refuses to recognize the motion (as Burrows did), the member can challenge the ruling.
A typical challenge to the speaker’s ruling requires 10 signatures.
But in the case of removing the speaker, it requires 76 signatures—the same number of votes needed to elect a speaker in the first place.
Burrows swiftly dismissed Harrison’s motion, even quipping, “You are not recognized even on April Fools’ Day, Mr. Harrison.” Laughter rippled through the chamber, signaling that most members did not take the motion seriously.
A Procedural Gray Area
Harrison continued to press the issue, but Burrows responded by saying, “A question of privilege must be raised by resolution. If you have a resolution, go ahead and file it.”
This response raised some confusion. Under Texas House precedent, motions to challenge the speaker’s refusal to recognize a motion must be submitted in writing, but that’s not necessarily the same as a formal resolution. In U.S. congressional precedent, however, a motion to vacate does require a resolution.
It’s unclear whether Burrows and his parliamentary team were following state House precedent or deferring to U.S. House rules. Either way, the requirement for a resolution meant that Harrison’s effort wasn’t going anywhere that day.
Adding to the challenge, resolutions must go through committee before being considered, and the committees are controlled by Speaker Burrows himself.
Political Fallout and Legislative Business
After the dust settled, Harrison revealed on social media that only one other lawmaker, Rep. David Lowe (R-Fort Worth), signed onto his motion. With such little support, it was evident that the challenge wasn’t going to gain traction.
Despite the brief political drama, the House quickly moved on to its main legislative business, passing several significant measures, including:
A constitutional amendment prohibiting taxation on financial transactions
A ban on capital gains taxes
Two wildfire response bills
A taxpayer transparency measure related to school financing
A sales tax exemption for certain exotic animals
Points of Order and Legislative Maneuvering
The House also saw its first point of order—a parliamentary move used to challenge the legitimacy of a bill or amendment—of the session.
State Rep. Briscoe Cain (R-Deer Park) attempted to add an amendment that would prevent local governments that hire lobbyists from receiving grant funding under a wildfire response bill. Rep. Joe Moody (D-El Paso) challenged it, arguing it wasn’t relevant to the bill, and new House Parliamentarian Sharon Carter ruled in Moody’s favor.
This ruling was notable because it was Carter’s first session as the sole parliamentarian, replacing Hugh Brady, who had previously shared the role but now serves as parliamentary counsel.
What’s Next?
The House is set to reconvene to finalize votes on the bills passed today and consider new legislation, including priority property tax measures.
Meanwhile, it remains to be seen whether Harrison will continue challenging the Speaker—a tactic he has frequently used throughout the session. While his motion to vacate ultimately went nowhere, it signals ongoing tensions within the Republican caucus and could foreshadow more procedural battles ahead.
