Dustin Burrows on bipartisanship, school vouchers and why he still thinks he’ll be Texas House speaker

It has been a tumultuous week for the Texas Legislature since House Speaker Dade Phelan abandoned his bid for another term.

As soon as the embattled Beaumont Republican announced his withdrawal from the race late last week, one of his top allies, Rep. Dustin Burrows of Lubbock, launched his own bid for the gavel. Burrows’ eleventh-hour candidacy led to a dramatic showdown last weekend against Rep. David Cook of Mansfield, who won a closed-door vote to become the House Republican Caucus’ endorsed candidate after a contingent of Burrows’ supporters exited the meeting.

Soon after, Burrows released a list of 76 current and incoming members — 38 Democrats and 38 Republicans — backing him for speaker, seeming to reach a majority of the 150-member chamber. But a few Republicans on the list immediately asked for their names to be removed, dropping Burrows’ public support below the 76-vote threshold.

A handful of other GOP members on Burrows’ list have also come out for Cook this week, amid an intense pressure campaign that has seen Cook’s hardline conservative supporters threaten to censure and wage aggressive primary challenges against any House Republicans who do not get behind the caucus’ speaker nominee. Some have also noted that Burrows once supported the caucus’ rule requiring all GOP members to support the group’s nominee when the House officially picks the speaker in January.

Burrows spoke with The Texas Tribune Friday morning about his bid for speaker and the delicate dance he is attempting as he looks to win the gavel with a mix of Democratic and Republican support.

This interview has been minimally edited for length and clarity.

Q: This all came together very quickly last week, with Speaker Phelan withdrawing from the race and you stepping forward essentially in his stead. What can you tell me about the backstory of how you suddenly emerged as a speaker candidate? What were those hours like last Thursday around when Phelan told members he was withdrawing and you filed paperwork to run yourself?

A: I’ll give you the big picture. Many of the members, basically, we huddled, got together, knew that we had to have somebody run for speaker. And as we [discussed], a speaker really doesn't choose to be speaker. The members choose who they want to be their speaker. And many of the people came to me and said, we'd like you to run. And the support was overwhelming, and I filed after that.

Q: Since you announced your list of 76 votes, a handful of members have asked for their names to be removed and said they're either backing Rep. Cook or they want to stay uncommitted. In light of that, do you still feel that you can get to 76 on the House floor?

A: I still feel confident we’ll have over 76 votes on the opening day of session to be speaker of the House. I have a great team, and I'm still working to get even more members comfortable on the opening day to vote [for me]. I still believe we can have a majority of Republicans support us on the opening day [Jan. 14, when the House will vote to elect the speaker for the next two years].

Q: It sounds like you’re trying to win over Republican members who are currently backing Rep. Cook. Do you think that is a possibility, even in the current environment?

A: The Texas Constitution says that all members get to vote on the opening day [of the Legislature]. And I believe that there's many Republicans who are either uncommitted, or committed to Cook, that know that I would do a better job by my experience, my steady-handedness, and how I've treated members in the chamber. And I expect them to do — I hope that they will do what they know in their heart is best for the state.

Q: In the universe where you aren't able to get 38-plus Republicans on board, would you still feel comfortable becoming speaker if it means relying on a majority Democratic coalition?

A: I am going to go to the House floor and be speaker of the Texas House. The people supporting me are from different ideological makeups.

This is not about anything other than having a chamber that is independent, that has a voice and that knows [the speaker] is going to apply the rules fairly — rules that allow the majority to rule but the minority to have their voice heard and respected. And I don't mean that just on partisan lines. Some of the issues that we fight over aren't necessarily on partisan lines. But you have to allow the majority to prevail, but the minority to have their voice heard. And the Texas House has always worked better when everybody is at the table and we find common ground.

Q: There's a lot of speculation about what sort of concessions, if any, you might be offering to Democrats. What case are you making when you’re talking to Democratic members? Are you offering them anything specific regarding continuing to appoint them as committee chairs or on school choice or ESAs [education savings accounts, the voucher-like policy that would allow parents to use public money to help pay for their children’s private school tuition]?

A: No concessions have been made. That would be illegal, and it'd be unethical, and I would never vote for a speaker who made concessions.

That being said, part of what, perhaps, is not visible is the relationships that I have built and forged, given the different positions that I have been in. There have been many times that I have collaborated with my Democrat colleagues, and they know that I am a steady hand. They know I have the experience, and they know that I have honored my word and commitment to being in a place to allow the right outcomes and have a sense of fairness — and that has been my appeal to them. And it doesn't hurt that the other side [Cook’s camp] has wanted significant rule changes to shut them out of the process completely, and that goes far beyond committee chairmanships.

Q: Just to be clear, would you continue to appoint Democrats to chair a limited number of committees?

A: This is what I've told every member, regardless of their party affiliation, and this is the traditionalist view of the Texas House, which is in respectfulness of the institution, which is what I am trying to take it back to:

The rules are for the members. They are designed to protect the members from the speaker. They are designed to figure out what powers the speaker's office has or doesn't have. You can have a speaker's office with strong powers or limited powers, or hardly any powers at all, but it is very important that a speaker not put their thumb on the scale on those. The members have to work that out amongst themselves to be a deliberative body and feel good about the rules that we're going to have to guide the debate and dissent and discussion during session. So I will not put my thumb on the scale, regardless of how I may feel internally about that, until that vote happens.

Q: That’s also the approach that Speaker Phelan has taken on school choice, or ESAs, which you have supported. Would you commit to giving [school vouchers] a floor vote?

A: It is going to be the will of the House as it should be. But I've also, I've learned when talking to my colleagues who don't always support the positions that I do, that they want me to be open and honest about what I think is going to happen. They don't like to be surprised.

I believe the political winds have shifted, and the votes are there for ESAs. But I want to be very clear, I believe next session will be focused on education. I believe that school finance will be a huge priority for members of all parties. School discipline is something that I hear about from teachers, administrators and colleagues that is very important and has to be done right. School safety, I've been in the middle of that conversation. I believe education — education for all students, public education funding, which needs to be improved, teacher pay raises, which we need to help our teachers — will be front and center of what the House is working towards on a unified front, along with ESAs, next session.

Q: Last year, even some of Speaker Phelan's supporters seem to feel that he kind of walked [GOP] members into a primary bloodbath with the [Attorney General Ken] Paxton impeachment, et cetera. Given the rhetoric [threats of primary challenges and censures] being directed at Republicans who are supporting you for speaker, are you concerned about the possibility of your supporters essentially putting their careers on the line in 2026 by supporting you for speaker?

A: So, I want to be clear: they're not necessarily supporting me for speaker. They're a team supporting the greater good of the House, and they feel committed to doing that. It's bigger than one person. I just happen to be the figurehead of it. They're fighting to make sure we still have a deliberative body, the people's House, where all members are going to have their voice heard, be able to represent their districts, and have somebody that is going to more respectfully, in my opinion, work with the Senate and the governor to accomplish the things that we need to accomplish next session.

Q: You also, of course, were once House GOP Caucus chair, and some Cook supporters have been giving you grief about continuing to pursue your speakership bid even after the caucus nominated Cook. What’s your response to that line of argument, that you should be abiding by the caucus rules that you once supported and were vocally in favor of?

A: I still believe on the opening day of session, I will be getting a significant number of House Republicans to vote for me. [Note: Burrows declined to expand further and said he expected one of his supporters, Rep. Terry Wilson of Marble Falls, to release an op-ed spelling out how the pro-Burrows contingent is approaching the caucus rule issue.]

Q: Gov. Greg Abbott — who had stayed silent about all the speaker drama — came out recently saying, without mentioning any candidate names, that the speaker should be chosen by a majority of Republicans in accordance with caucus rules. At the moment, that’s a tacit signal of support for Rep. Cook. What’s your reaction to Gov. Abbott weighing in, especially given that you and the governor have been so aligned on property taxes and other issues?

A: I still think that we will be having a significant number of Republicans support us, and I have not stopped working to help unite Republicans. But that last part of your question is right. I have worked closely with the governor over many sessions on a variety of issues. For the casual observer, I think that they have noticed that, and I will continue to work with both the governor and lieutenant governor where the interests of the House and them are aligned — which I think there'll be many things that we will be aligned on.

Q: Lastly, going back five years ago, you were on the outs with some of your colleagues after the incident with then-Speaker [Dennis] Bonnen and [conservative activist] Michael Quinn Sullivan. [Note: Burrows and Bonnen were revealed to have provided names of House Republicans for Sullivan’s political group to primary. The matter prompted Bonnen to retire and Burrows to resign as House GOP Caucus chair.] When you think back to how you went from stepping down as caucus chair five years ago, to now being in this current moment where you could become speaker – what are your thoughts on the craziness of the last five years and your journey over that time?

A: Let me point out, as an aside, some of my strong support comes from some of the members that were very oppositional to [me in] that period of time. That's worth noting.

But I do believe that being the Texas House speaker, going into this session, members are looking for a known quantity. They're looking for somebody they know has experience — I don't mean all good experience — to actually lead. Somebody who they can rely upon that has that steady hand. I have gone from the highest of highs to the lowest of lows in that chamber. And I'm not talking about just that cycle [around the Bonnen scandal]. I'm talking about from 2015 to 2017 to 2019. I didn't really pass a bill for a long period of time. But I have walked in many different shoes in that body. It has been very good to me. I very much respect it, and I know the members know I care very deeply about it. And because I've had all those different experiences — some fantastic, some bad — they know the type of person and leader that I will be. And I will tell you, the part that will be the most sacred, difficult and challenging work I ever did, was leading the investigative committee in Uvalde [Note: Burrows chaired a House panel that looked into the 2022 shooting at Robb Elementary School] and passing a bipartisan school safety bill. And it was better because it was bipartisan. The internal deliberations and going through that experience … was very impactful to me.