As long as the 2/3rds rule is in effect, the Senate will operate as it has for decades. Dan Patrick et al. need someone in addition to Wendy Davis to lose.

I foresee a serious challenge to the Senate's rules that will fail. The tradeoff will be vastly different committee assignments and more social issues coming to the floor.

Dewhurst stays tuned to the weather channel. So in some ways that is the way he has always operated.

The Senate has just about had it with Dewhurst - expect a renewed sense of displeasure. The recent excitement with the prospect of his departure and the chain of events that would have triggered can only now be matched with the enthusiasm by which the remaining bit of hot air pouring from his campaign balloon provides.

Your question assumes that Dewhurst will return this session as Lt. Governor. In the event that he does, which is not assured, you could very well see the establishment of a Senate Majority Leader.

Depends on Wendy Davis being reelected and if the two thirds rule survives.

There is simply no way the Senate can operate as it has. Dewhurst, like Straus, does not know how to control the floor and has few lieutenants on which to rely for help when things get sticky.

There will be increased pressure to run the Senate on a partisan basis.

Absolutely. This is the only guaranteed moderating factor. Witness voter id results from last session when senate went to committee of the whole.

The State of Texas, the Texas Senate and its traditions are much bigger than the tea party or any other movement. The Senate should not pass knee-jerk legislation, like the House. This rule is designed for cooler heads to prevail and for problems to be solved. No one wants legislation shoved down their pie hole. The pendulum will swing the other way soon, so be careful what you wish for.

They only keep the rule when they feel like it anyway. What's the point of pretending?.

We've operated this long without knowing of conflicts of interest and personal stakes, so why change it?.

Yes, but we shouldn't be shocked that someone can serve for $7200 a year but still build wealth while serving.

We are long past due for an ethics scandal.

Given the fact that in recent years members have done everything from pimp red light cameras in exchange for a Mercedes (Paging Linda Harper Brown) to pass bills to protect their beach homes (Exit stage right, Mr. Christian), a little transparency might not be such a bad thing.

But this does not meant that members of the Legislature should disclose their personal income tax returns. Unlike members of Congress, legislators cannot amend the Internal Revenue Code to make or break tax exemptions that benefit them personally. If you want to know whether a legislator is using tax law to their benefit, ask them for their business's franchise tax and sales tax returns.

Enough is enough. Since when did running for office require the electoral equivalent of a colonoscopy? Disclosure ad nauseum will further deter otherwise good people from serving the public.

Too much profiteering is resulting from legislative decisions. That should be exposed.