Thursday, March 1st, 2007...6:58 am
Geez, Over 1,000 Words From Farley and Not One Mention of Light Rail. Man, You Are Slipping.
In his latest e-mail to supporters and activists, Steve Farley brags that he has found out that Speaker Jim Weiers reads them, and even reads excerpts to other Republicans at caucus meetings.
Weiers and his staff read this blog too. I have also encountered Republican members that read me, and like what I write. This disturbs me in ways I can’t describe. I mean, if Republicans like it, am I really doing my job?
Farley’s e-mail contained a sort of primer on the process and a bit about why Democrats are hopeful about what will be going on for the rest of the session:
Lots and lots of bills are now being COW’d and Third Read on the floor, and Democrats are showing newfound strength in actually killing some bad bills and giving the Republicans bad scares on others.
Beware, what follows is a pretty lingo-laden description of a portion of the billmaking process to satisfy your civics curiosity.
You may be asking, what’s a COW? That stands for Committee of the Whole, wherein the entire House sits on the Floor as one huge committee. Instead of a Speaker, there is a Chair, which rotates among all members. In COW , we hear all bills that have passed out of committee, amendments added in committee, and new amendments added on the Floor. There is often considerable debate over the more significant bills. Votes are made by voice, unless a “division” is called where members stand up to be counted in favor and against.
While the votes in COW are somewhat ambiguous, the votes become precise during the next step, Third Read, where we each must cast a vote in favor or against by pushing a flashing green or red button at our desks. (This is unlike committee votes, where one might also vote “Present” to avoid taking a side.) All members must stay in our seats at this time, or Ron Gill–our Sergeant at Arms–will come and escort us back to our seats. If the House bill passes, it moves on to the Senate to start the process all over again in First Read and Committees. If it fails, it dies–at least for the time being. We successfully killed two bills last Tuesday, which then were brought back for reconsideration where one was killed again, and the other passed as a result of just enough twisted arms, courtesy of the Speaker.
In order to prepare ourselves and develop Floor strategy, all members of the Democratic caucus meet together every Tuesday morning in a public meeting to discuss all bills that have passed Rules and may be assigned to COW in the near future. We all get to voice our concerns or our support in a public way, so that other members may know where we stand and develop their own reasons to vote for or against bills. Republican staff take careful notes–consequently we often find that bills we have targeted as a caucus are later “retained on the calendar” (delayed indefinitely) by the Republican leadership, to allow more armtwisting so that the bills might withstand Democratic attack.
You see, with our 27 members, Democrats only need to stick together and turn three Republicans to kill any bill and only four to pass any bill. Which is why the R’s are really cranking up the pressure on their own members to vote in lockstep. This explains why many speeches in committees by Republican members sound like they are explaining a “no” vote on a Republican bill, but end with “yes” votes.
The most promising outcome of this majority-caucus pressure-cooker environment is that cracks are beginning to show. I believe that within a few weeks we’ll start to see some pretty interesting votes on the floor. What I hear (and I’m sure this is no news to the Speaker) is that there are quite a few Republicans of differing stripes who are fed up with being taken to the woodshed. We’ll be watching very carefully, and welcoming them to the side of reason.
4 Comments
March 1st, 2007 at 9:37 am
Interesting points made by Representative Farley about what it takes to pass and kill a bill. Most interesting is the “lockstep” part.
1. I wonder how much easier it is to defect now? For instance, with fewer Republicans in the legislature, that mean fewer for leadership and committee head posts. Not as easy to punish them (honestly…how would they punish rogue votes?) when you need every body in a power position.
2. They NEED the moderate republicans more badly then ever. This gives moderates in the legislature…on both sides…an enormous amount of power if wielded effectively.
3. Defections may become more rational. Why? Well, gallop polls are indicated that those ideological and party leanings in this state and other red states are shifting. Taking a bold, ideological stance may not be as palatable now or as safe as it used to be. They will face re-election and some will be turned out by term limit. It might be quite smart to triangulate a little…just a little.
4. Finally, while the press has reported on some amazingly nutty bills…like for instance the “Academic Bill of Rights” which is one of the most un-American bills I have seen in years…there may be fewer of purely ideoligical bills introduced, and if introduced, they are more likely to die in committee.
My 2 cents.
I would love to hear from others just how “lock step” Republicans have been…or for that matter…Democrats. I just can’t imagine, say, Rep. Burns always voting with the Reps with the District that she has.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:27 am
I think it’s a matter of those moderate Republicans picking their battles carefully and making wise vote trades. The concern among all of them is that they will be attacked in their primary elections when they (again) go up against very conservative Republicans.
There hasn’t been a whole lot of breaking from the ranks yet, but the House and Senate haven’t debated any of the divisive issues on the floor yet. They will soon, though.
March 1st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
It still brings up the whole question of why they can’t all figure out a bipartisan consensus. I mean, for example, I have one Democratic representative (Jack Brown) who truth be known would probably vote with the Republicans more often then I’d like if there was even a hint of bipartisanship in any of these bills– but with the GOP leadership pushing so hard to prevent any Democratic sponsored bills from even being heard, and not working out bipartisan legislation– well, ol’ Jack and the rest of the Democrats lose absolutely nothing by voting as a bloc themselves. And unlike the GOP, they have no reason at all to defect since they will in effect get nothing even if they did.
And all of that will end up with– probably more Gubernatorial vetoes.
Here is a novel idea– suppose the GOP leadership worked out some bipartisan legislation with Democrats and got a unanimous or near-unanimous vote on it? Then the Governor would not be able to sustain a veto, and the GOP would get whatever their priorities in the bill were without having to worry about it. Might not work on the budget (line-item) but it could work on a lot of other legislation. Only it seems like the Republican leadership is more interested in scoring partisan points than in actually figuring out a way to make things work.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Of course GOP leadership is interested in playing partisan politics. Democrat leaders would do the same thing, too, if the roles were reversed. That’s the advantage of being in power: your philosophies and proposals get heard. It’s a political reality that, on major issues, there is a philosophical divide between the two parties. Even among the mods in both camps, there are going to be issues that they will not agree on.
The problem is more acute in the House, as Weiers like to play political games and will take any opportunity to attack the governor. The House GOP caucus is also generally more conservative than the Senate GOPs. Why do you think the immigration bills have gone through the House first, not the Senate? A number of the proposals will get through the House, but will either fail in the Senate or will be watered down to get the votes of the mod Republicans there.
Leave a Reply