Texans for Lawsuit Reform

<p><a href="http://www.tortreform.com/advocate/tlr-advocate-march-2009">http://www.tortreform.com/advocate/tlr-advocate-march-2009</a> bs</p>

<p>

. Department of Home Land Security Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

<h4>Meet Texas House Speaker Joe Straus</h4>

<p><img src="/63083b0b-35ae-5a83-b4a6-196cfb385afc.jpg"/>Speaker Straus, who was first elected to the House in 2005, is a principal in the insurance and executive benefits firm of Watson, Mazur, Bennett & Straus, L.L.C. He is affiliated with National Financial Partners, a leading financial services company in the insurance, investments, and benefits industry.

During the 2007 legislative session, Speaker Straus served on the Committee on Economic Development as Vice-Chairman and the <b>Committee on Regulated Industries</b>. Speaker Straus is a business leader and an advocate of strong economic development policies.

“I believe a fair and balanced civil justice system is key to maintaining a healthy Texas economy and making certain all Texans have full access to doctors and medical care,” Straus said.</p>

<p>

A lifelong Republican, Speaker Straus served in the administration of President George H. W. Bush from 1989 through 1991 as deputy director of Business Liaison at the U.S. Department of Commerce and also in the Reagan administration as executive assistant to the Commissioner of Customs. In 1986, he was U.S. Representative Lamar Smith’s campaign manager in Mr. Smith’s first race for Congress.

Speaker Straus is a graduate of Vanderbilt University with a B.A. in Political Science. He is an avid sportsman with a lifelong passion for thoroughbred breeding. He is married to Julie Brink Straus. They have two daughters, Sara and Robyn.

<h4>Thank You Tom Craddick</h4>

<p>Out-going Speaker Tom Craddick presided over the Texas House when a series of landmark lawsuit reforms were passed that have increased access to healthcare throughout the state and helped make the Texas economy the strongest in the nation.

Under Speaker Craddick’s leadership, Texas instituted historic asbestos litigation reform and the comprehensive medical liability reforms that have stopped the exodus of doctors from our state and generated millions in additional funds for charity care. In his first session as House Speaker, Mr. Craddick was instrumental in the passage of House Bill 4, the most comprehensive civil justice reform in American history.

“Speaker Craddick’s commitment to a fair and balanced civil justice system has made a positive and historic difference in the direction of our state. TLR is very grateful for his leadership,” said Richard Weekley, Chairman and CEO of Texans for Lawsuit Reform.

<h4>81st Legislature: Civil Justice Priorities</h4>

<p>TLR has worked with the Texas Legislature over the past 15 years to pass a series of prudent and effective lawsuit reforms that have largely restored balance and fairness to the Texas civil justice system and engendered wider trust among our citizens in the fairness of our litigation system.

These reforms have strengthened the Texas economy, enabling our people to innovate, our businesses to expand, our citizens to have jobs, and our government entities to have strong tax revenue to support education, healthcare and other government programs and activities. Healthcare throughout our State is much more accessible due to medical liability reforms passed in 2003. The physician shortage has largely ended and doctors are now coming to Texas in record numbers.

Personal injury trial lawyers want to roll back lawsuit reforms and reverse these gains. They have proposed a number of pieces of legislation that attack the basic principals of lawsuit reform and would overturn important rulings of our appellate courts. Their goal is to create new opportunities for litigation. These efforts, if successful, would damage our legal system and our economy’s ability to compete, innovate, grow, and produce jobs for Texans.

Below is a brief description of a few of the major trial lawyer proposals we oppose and why we oppose them:</p>

<p>

===

mary tipps lobbyist

 </p>

<dl>

<dd>Mary Tipps</dd>

<dt>State Ethics ID</dt>

<dt>Occupation</dt>

<dd>Texans for Lawsuit Return</dd>

<dt>Phone</dt>

<dt>Address</dt>

</dl>

<address>919 Congress Suite 455

Austin, TX, 78701</address>

</address><div>

<table class="DBtable"><tbody><tr class="grey1"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6289451">TOOMEY, MICHAEL</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$100,000</td></tr><tr class="grey2"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6288144">GARCIA, JOE A</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$50,000</td></tr><tr class="grey1"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6288836">MESSER, BILL</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$50,000</td></tr><tr class="grey2"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6289458">TRABULSI JR, RICHARD J</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$50,000</td></tr><tr class="grey1"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6289523">WALDROP, G ALAN</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$50,000</td></tr><tr class="grey2"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6287492">ARMENDARIZ, RICARDO</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$25,000</td></tr><tr class="grey1"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6288212">GRACE JR, JIM M</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$25,000</td></tr><tr class="grey2"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6289308">SIBLEY, DAVID</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$25,000</td></tr><tr class="grey1"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6289388">STRAMA, KEITH</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$25,000</td></tr><tr class="grey2"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6289608">WITTENBURG, MICHELLE</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$25,000</td></tr><tr class="grey1"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6287584">BERRY, JORDAN</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$10,000</td></tr><tr class="grey2"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6288682">LOPEZ, M EDWARD</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$10,000</td></tr><tr class="grey1"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6288429">HULL, MICHAEL S</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$0</td></tr><tr class="grey2"><td><a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/lobbyistexpenditures/lobbyistexp.phtml?reid=6289447">TIPPS, MARY L</a></td><td>Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.)</td><td>NONE GIVEN</td><td class="text-right">$0</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

<p> 

TOOMEY, MICHAEL Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $100,000

GARCIA, JOE A Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $50,000

MESSER, BILL Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $50,000

TRABULSI JR, RICHARD J Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $50,000

WALDROP, G ALAN Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $50,000

ARMENDARIZ, RICARDO Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $25,000

GRACE JR, JIM M Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $25,000

SIBLEY, DAVID Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $25,000

STRAMA, KEITH Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $25,000

WITTENBURG, MICHELLE Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $25,000

BERRY, JORDAN Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $10,000

LOPEZ, M EDWARD Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $10,000

HULL, MICHAEL S Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $0

TIPPS, MARY L Compensation (Fees, Retainers, etc.) NONE GIVEN $0</p>

</address><div>

</div>

<p> -----</p><p>guess at connection: ROVE</p><p>
</p><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">tp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/texas/tort.html
</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">

Executive editor, <i>Texas Monthly</i>

1988 is, in many ways, a watershed for Rove. It shows you how an

issue can … help Republicans accelerate this trend towards

Republicanism. And the issue was tort reform. I think that the country

is about to get a big dose of this [issue], but we've been having big

doses of this for a long time [in Texas] -- in fact, since <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Karl Rove

started to run Supreme Court justices back in the late '80s. </span>The Supreme

Court basically swung 100 percent, too. Rove ran almost every single

one of them.

The kind of cases that would come to the Supreme Court would be,

somebody works for an oil refinery down in Corpus Christi or something,

and somebody gets hurt, or let's say, claims long-term poisoning by the

atmosphere -- big case like this [is] your typical tort case. So a

worker for the company would be poisoned or claiming he was poisoned,

and then he would sue the company. And of course, the trial lawyers, the

tort lawyers, would come in behind this guy, and the corporate defense

lawyers would take [on] the major oil company that was being sued. This

then would go up through the various lower courts, state courts and

appellate courts. And some of these cases would get to the [Texas]

Supreme Court.

<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">So let's say the Supreme Court sided with the little guy all the

time, which they did in the '80s. It became, in effect, a plaintiff's

court. The Supreme Court in Texas was ruling almost every time in the

favor of plaintiffs. The effect of this ... is you get higher

malpractice rates for doctors; insurance costs a lot more money. Some

people perceive it as an ill to society to have too many verdicts in

favor of plaintiffs. If a woman gets scalded by McDonald's coffee, maybe

she shouldn't get a $5 million award. This is the realm that we're in

now.</span></p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">

</span><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">So Karl comes in and says, "You know, we're going to run [with] tort reform. And he does for a whole decade.</span>

How does he come up with this idea?

He wasn't the first one to think about it, but he understood what it

was, and he understood how it could be used. He began deliberately to

work for candidates for whom that issue was important. I think one of

the reasons perhaps that someone in Texas would think of tort reform

before someone in Iowa is because we have some of the most famous

plaintiffs venues in the country here. In the Golden Triangle of

Beaumont area of Texas, you have a lot of plants that made asbestos and

other things or that used a lot of chemical and oil refinery. The border

is perhaps the most notorious place. That's where the famous McDonald's

verdict came from. Texas was a place where a smart trial lawyer could

venue shop and get himself a good jury and get, you know, a $30 million

verdict against a large company and win it and then take obviously half

of it. This was the place where that sort of thing happened. So I think

that Karl ... saw it as a coming issue, and a big one. And believe me,

not everybody saw this.

The other side of it was … if you looked at the <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">biggest givers to the

Texas Democratic Party in the '80s and the '90s, you would see at the

top of that list trial lawyers. </span>So it became this giant pitched battle,

because it wasn't just necessarily about the kind of verdicts and the

ease with which someone might get a verdict for a plaintiff, but it was

also about the back end, which was the financing of the entire

Democratic Party. Karl saw it as an adversary proposition in that

particular way, and he also saw, through these Supreme Court candidates,

that this was the wave to ride. And he rode it.

Now, the Supreme Court candidates in the state of

Texas or almost anywhere else are "down ballot," as they say in the

business. We're not talking about the governorship, for example. We're

talking about something that is important to a certain group of people:

business interests, trial lawyers, a handful of other people. … How does

he figure out that this is the vulnerable spot? Is that Rove's genius

at work or what?

I think it's Rove genius at work. I think he understands the

significance of the issue before most people do. Most people do not

understand that it's going to be this giant, pitched battle, which it

becomes in the '90s -- I mean, a real pitched battle. It's a battle for

the soul of Texas politics because it's a battle for the money, the

lifeline money of Democrats, which is now drying up. …</p>

Texas political consultant

<b class="question">How does tort reform become an issue in a state like this? And how important was it?</b>

Well, what happened in tort reform is that <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Republicans were still

thwarted in winning statewide office in many ways</span>. And there was not a

breakthrough moment until <i>60 Minutes</i> came to the state in '89 and

did an expose, is justice for sale on the Texas Supreme Court? They had

done some filming at a retreat where judges were there, and there were

big trial lawyers, and it was just too friendly for words. You looked at

the pictures and you think, "This really doesn't measure up."

And many of the decisions coming out of the court were angering --

and that's putting it mildly -- business interests in the state.

Suddenly, you had this TV profile about the Supreme Court.

Bill Clements had won election to the governorship after being

thwarted in '82, and the chief justice retired. So he appointed a fellow

named Tom Phillips to become chief justice. Tom is as straight as the

day is long -- nicest guy you'll ever want to meet. He had a great

issue, and he had Karl Rove as his consultant and they took [on] the

court. They beat the Democrats, and then the Democrats began seeing that

this is going to be a hard place to live successfully.

The other members of the court left. Other appointments were made.

And suddenly the court was beginning to switch to Republican. And this

is down ballot, which is not normally how you win statewide races. You

win at the top rather than the bottom. But because the court had tort

reform and Karl, it was a great environment to elect Republicans. You

could raise a huge amount of money. You had a great gut emotional issue,

and you were in business.

What makes it a great gut emotional issue?

If you have tort reform, and you have a news profile that basically

slams your opposition -- in this case the trial bar; it makes them look

like total sellouts, buying justice, buying the result on the court --

that is something that people can feel. It's a visceral reaction. It's

dishonest. And then you got the <i>60 Minutes</i> label on this, and all

of a sudden you've got money, you got a good candidate, you got a

visceral issue. When people see it, they get emotionally tight about it.

What's your assessment of the effect, in terms of Texas politics, of those victories?

Well, I think that what happened is the trial bar became the bogeyman

in state politics. Anybody who took money from trial lawyers became

part of tort reform [opposition]. And so in legislative races and other

races, any time the Democratic Party and the Democratic candidates took

an enormous amount of money from the trial bar, then you could say,

"They're in the back pocket of the trial bar." It gave you an issue

going forward, and you could paint your opponent as being against tort

reform and in the pocket of the trial bar. That worked as a miracle drug

for politics.

In other words, if you just got some money from the trial lawyers --

Your opponent had to defend taking that money. And you know, the

environment was such that defense was never credible. The more you talk

about it, the deeper the hole. …

Part of the story of the Supreme Court and tort

reform was that the system was awash in all kinds of funny money. … And

Phillips made this promise or pledge…

He did a self-limitation on contributions. In Texas you can give as

much money as you choose to in state races, and Tom Phillips was the

first candidate, I believe, who sort of self-limited what he would

receive. At the end of the day it didn't really affect the amount of

money he raised, because he raised millions and millions of dollars. He

just raised it in slightly smaller amounts than the big chunks that you

see otherwise.

How smart an idea was that, at the time?

Well, it was a perfect idea for coming out of what you had seen that

you're working against the trial bar, which had given enormous-sized

checks. So it made him look like he was trying to clean up the system

and look straight and narrow. And that was exactly the perception that

people had of him. And that's exactly the way he is, really. …</p>

Lobbyist, Texas Medical Association

<b class="question">…How does [Karl Rove] attach himself to this issue, or the issue attach itself to him?</b>

He knew intuitively, as most of us would have, that you had to have,

as Mark Twain says, "a devil for the crusade." And if this was the

crusade in the context of a judicial race, of which no one really cares

about, you had to demonize somebody and in this case it was central

casting. [The Supreme Court justices] were doing it to themselves. They

were writing opinions that were offensive on their face. And essentially

one particular opinion stated, "I don't care what this court previously

said. I don't care what the legislature said. In fact, I was in this

legislature when this law was passed. It was a political compromise.

I've been elected to the court, and therefore I have a mandate to change

these laws because they just aren't right." And there was a level of

hubris, and we had a side that allowed us to exploit that. And it just

so happened, because that was that era when the trial lawyers were a

very convenient device for us to use to begin to educate voters in terms

of a philosophical shift.

And Karl's particular skill position, his expertise?

Communication. He has a gift for messaging, among other things, as

history has shown us. But a great sense of campaigning, knowing where

the votes were, knowing what messages worked with which voters. … Karl

retailed it and convinced a very cynical lobby to impose self limits …

on what [amount of money] they would accept, again distinguishing

himself. It was a ingenious approach.

Of course the chief justice [Tom Phillips] was a very, very bright

man -- but so was Karl. And [Phillips] sat us in a room and he said, "I

know you all want to send me more money. I will not accept more than

this," what we thought were fairly minimal amounts, knowing the other

side was going to outspend us. And Rove said, "And that's the point.

Their strength becomes their weakness." And I was nodding my head and

thinking, "That's very smart and bold and very risky, but also arguably

by far the best strategy to take if you want to take the risk." …

So what tort reform really is, is a catch phrase, an organizing principle. It's like "Right to Work…"

Yeah, it's an organizing principle to bring together swing voters

and, more importantly, to consolidate business [and] professional

communities together. And frankly … tort reform has a kinder, gentler

face. … It's a way of softening the blunt instrument that tort reform is

when you're asking to limit damages or to allow to counter sue or limit

standards for expert witnesses and all the things that are the

esoterica of what, essentially, is saying, "Plaintiff, you had this

right, but we're taking it away because we think you've abused it." And

you do it by putting a lab coat on and arguing about access to care and

the cost of medical care, not whether or not Dow Chemical is going to

pay this or this and punitive damages on a suit where they might or

might not be guilty. …

Was tort reform a big issue in [the 1994 Texas governor's race]?

It was. Yeah, it was.

And that was Karl driving that in or that was Bush?

I think it would be indistinguishable. I mean, it was a mantra-like

issue for their natural core constituencies, including doctors. And it

was also something that they could run right at Ann [Richards] with,

because she had tons of trial lawyer support. It was a wedge issue, but

it would have been imprudent not to use it. …

How important was the success of tort reform in that first term for Bush, for Bush's re-election? …

It established his pro-business credentials in a real simple and

obvious way. It was not in and of itself the one thing, but it was

delivering on a promise. It was certainly consolidated business and

professional support for him in ways it would make him virtually

unassailable from a Democrat ever again, which was something still to

consider in those days in Texas. …</p>

Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court (1988-2004)

<b class="question">… So the plan for your campaign, what was the

bottom line? One of the decisions early on was that you would only

accept certain amount of donations. What did you guys sit down and

decide and why?</b>

One of the things I liked about working with Karl is, although he was

not a lawyer, he instantly perceived why a race for judge needed to be

entirely different than a race for any other political office. And why

it would be bad for the state -- and fatal politically -- for a judicial

candidate, to be taking a position on substantive policy issues that

were currently being debated around the state; why judicial candidates

had to be seen as, and in fact be completely in adherence with both the

spirit and the law of all the ethical codes and the ethical norms that

surrounded being a judge.

I think he felt the tension between judges standing for election and

judges being judges in a way that most political consultants simply had

no patience with. Their view was -- many of them at any rate -- go out

and try to jump on some of the bandwagons of momentary public interest,

whether that was English-only in the schools, or abortion, or guns, and

be seen as a popular advocate for something and win a lot of votes. And

the next time an election comes up, if there were other hot issues, by

then you could get in front of those. Karl completely rejected that and

was instrumental in seeing that the Republican Party rejected that. …

I made it clear that I was soliciting people to vote for me, not

because I was a Republican, but because of the job I would do as a

judge. Karl was quite good at crafting that message, and persuading

other people to accept that message. I'd never run a contested race

before for any office. And I was seen, I think quite rightly, as a

neophyte in terms of actual experience. …

<b>The "Clean Slate '88" vote -- how important was

that? And how did that come about? Why did that group take on the

important role that they did?</b>

1988 was a very unusual year because ordinarily there were three

justices on the ballot each year, on a nine-justice court, but, because

of resignations, there were six races for the Supreme Court on the

ballot in 1988. So it was absolutely a chance to shape the whole Texas

Supreme Court. …

And so with an opportunity for six of the nine seats to be decided in

one election, a lot of groups that might otherwise have just sat aside

and watched … decided to get involved. And there was a coalition built

-- which I'm really not aware of the details, because it was conducted

separate from the campaign -- that decided to back a bipartisan slate.

That was seen to be very important at the time, not only because they

genuinely felt that some Republicans and some Democrats were going to be

better justices, but also because the state was not a Republican state.

… The heritage of the Civil War and FDR, made the Democratic Party the

dominant party at the courthouse level in Texas by a huge margin,

perhaps 10 to 1 [among] all elected officials in the state.

This "Clean Slate" effort tried to break through that. We tried to go

out into areas of the state that had never voted for a Republican

before, except perhaps for Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, maybe Sen.

Tower, Sen. Gramm. [We] tried to go out and convince those people that

it was safe to vote Republican way further down the ballot, at least in

some of the races; that you couldn't look at these judge races on a

partisan basis. You had to look at the individuals. The judges weren't

going to behave in a party fashion. There wasn't going to be a party

platform for the cases they heard.

So what was Karl Rove's involvement with that kind

of an organization, and also in understanding that the vote had to be

pushed out into the rural areas?

… Karl had some excellent ideas of how to take an abstract plan --

let's make a judicial race interesting to 2 million voters -- and put

that into practice in a way that people will decide it was important

enough to study who all these candidates were in these court races, and

cast a vote not based on which party had felt which way about the Civil

War, but based on right now, what was important to the people of the

state of Texas.

So in 1988, [six] out of nine Supreme Court judges

were replaced. … Did that sort of set the stage for a lot of other

Republicans, and Republican donors to realize that this was a doable

thing?

I'm sure the fact that [so many Republicans candidates won] the

Supreme Court was important in building the Republican Party. For

whatever reason the Republicans left very few races unopposed after that

on the statewide ballot. I think [there were only] maybe five or six

judicial races where there was a Democratic incumbent for the rest of

the decade. At most five or six did not have an opponent. And, of

course, by the end of the 1990s, Republicans were running unopposed, at

least in judicial races. …

The bigger issue of tort reform, what was Karl Rove's point of view on the issue and in the support that it garnered?

Well, I think there was a widespread feeling in Texas at the time

among the average citizen, as well as among other people, that the trial

lawyers were too powerful within the legislature. The plaintiff's

personal injury lawyers, as a small group, had wielded an inordinate

amount of power in the legislature. And Texas's very lax venue laws --

those are laws that say where you can [hold a] trial -- allowed a

disproportionate number of cases to be tried in areas of the state that

had no real connection with the dispute, but were areas where juries

were known to be liable to give a very large award if their sympathies

could be properly invoked.

And that reputation was very damaging to the state of Texas in terms

of discouraging businesses to locate in Texas, or expand, or

discouraging professionals like doctors to locate their practice

uniformly across the state rather than just in particular areas. And

[many thought] it would be a good thing for Texas if the legislature

would overhaul some of the tort laws, and if the judges would have

somewhat more respect for the common-law precedence that had obtained in

Texas for a long time, and not be quite so "activist," was the popular

term in overruling those precedents. And I think Karl felt that. …

Were you surprised that Karl sort of rode this issue

and pushed it and that it still is such a popular issue today, an

important issue?

Well, Gov. Bush ran in 1994 against Gov. Richards on four planks, and

tort reform was one of those planks, and he got what he wanted from the

legislature on all four of those planks. And since then, some citizen

groups have formed in Texas that have been remarkably successful in

persuading legislators to adopt their suggested changes in tort law. And

they've done it without going through the normal, capitol lobbyist

crowd.

I think Karl has seen that, and it has been a salient issue in Texas.

And so I'm not surprised that he's interested in that issue, but I

don't think you can draw a direct line from Supreme Court races in 1988

to the proposals that President Bush is making before Congress now. …</p>

</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">
</td></tr></tbody></table>