Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2008

Let’s try both plans for increasing recorded votes

IF YOU WANT our government to operate well and believe voters have a right to make informed decisions, then requiring more recorded votes in the Legislature is a no-brainer. By giving voters the tools to hold legislators responsible for their votes, we force legislators to become more familiar with what they’re voting for; they will no longer be able to claim the popular position regardless of how they voted (or didn’t vote).

The problem is that much of what happens in the Legislature is either inconsequential or devoid of controversy, a voice vote is much quicker than a recorded vote, and no one has figured out how to write a rule that distinguishes between “important” votes and unimportant ones. Like pornography, everybody knows an important vote when they see it, but they can’t figure out how to put it in writing.

Ideally, of course, legislators wouldn’t need rules. They would voluntarily take recorded votes on all important matters. Alas, our world is not ideal; in fact, the whole recorded votes campaign grew out of the deliberately unrecorded votes in the House on automatic increases for legislators’ pensions.

Two proposals have been offered to address the problem — a straightforward plan proposed last week by Senate Republican Leader Harvey Peeler and a more convoluted plan by Speaker Bobby Harrell that was added to the House’s rules earlier this month. Critics consider Mr. Harrell’s proposal fraudulent reform. But while we agree that it has its flaws, Mr. Peeler’s plan to record votes on all bills is far from perfect.

The House rule will greatly increase the number of votes in which representatives actually push the “yes” or “no” buttons on their desks, which previously happened only if 10 representatives requested it; now it will occur on every bill that affects taxes or fees, the state ethics law and legislative benefits, as well as every budget amendment that involves at least $10,000. That falls far short of every important vote, and there are several additions that should be made, most notably mandatory recorded votes on conference reports. But Mr. Peeler’s plan also misses some important votes, while at the same time casting a net so broad as to gum up the legislative process. The House rule attempts to bridge the gap by requiring that, when traditional roll-calls are not taken, everyone be recorded as voting “yes” unless they state otherwise.

Critics say requiring legislators to make individual arrangements to have their “no” vote recorded on every bill they oppose places an unreasonable burden on them. They also charge that this lets people who aren’t even in the chamber be officially recorded as having been there doing their job.

But the inconvenience factor could turn out to be a benefit, because it could lead to more actual roll-call votes (on important matters), which still can be requested by 10 representatives. We share the absentee legislator concern, but those who try it are just as likely to get into political trouble for their non-vote votes.

Fortunately, we’re in a good position to test out these competing approaches, since legislators have the option of either changing state law or amending their internal operating rules: Let the House use its rule, have the Senate adopt Mr. Peeler’s rule, and we can see which works best. If either rule is as flawed as critics say, that will become apparent rather quickly. And if the House rule is, as those driving this movement contend, the most flawed, then the public is likely to be even more outraged for having been deceived.

Get The State newspaper delivered to your home. Click here to subscribe.