Quorum call: Where’s your lawmaker?

Published: Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 10:29 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 10:29 a.m.

The Louisiana House of Representatives last week debated changing its rule about members changing votes, but instead changed the subject, and so in the end changed nothing.

The rule in question changed two years ago, though not much changed. Previously, a member wishing to change his or her vote on a bill simply informed the clerk of the House to do so, either that day, the next day or any day before the end of the legislative session. No rush. The only restriction was, and still is, that a vote cannot be changed if that changes the outcome on a matter.

In 2008, Speaker Jim Tucker got a new rule adopted requiring members to go the mic and ask the House’s permission to change a vote, the idea being that they would be more reluctant to do that in the wide open. He was wrong.

Instead, there came a daily processional of representatives changing yeas to nays and vice versa or from absent to yea or nay. It became a public embarrassment to the House as a whole, especially once watchdog blogger C. B. Forgotston starting giving legislators grief for it.

So another rule was proposed simply to prohibit members from changing their votes. Instead of legislators just doing it, the debate radically changed direction to dueling amendments over adjusting the partisan composition of the committee responsible for initiating reapportionment plans next year. This turned into a public airing a grievances by committee chairman Rick Gallot to Speaker Tucker, the smoldering residue of the divisive speaker pro tem election on the first day of the session.

Eventually, the whole matter was returned it to the calendar. It only took the House about an hour and a half to do nothing.

The speaker says the issue will be resolved before the session ends. For the remainder of the week, there seemed to be an informal embargo on changing votes, though that, of course, could easily change.

Yet there is a larger issue facing the House than vote changing, which is voting in the first place, or lack thereof.

Of 103 representatives serving (two vacancies will be filled in May 29 special elections), rarely does a motion attract more than 95 yeas and nays. The more contested a bill, the lower the number drops, often to the mid-80s.

Regardless of the amount of members present and voting, it takes 53 yea votes to pass a regular bill and 70 for a proposed constitutional amendment or to raise a tax or fee. So, on close questions, a non-vote counts the same as a nay, except that the non-voter is not held accountable.

Whether a bill passes 88-0 or 100-0 matters little. But when most legislators present vote for a measure which fails for lack of an absolute majority, someone is not doing their job. There is a schedule of bills to be debated in order, so it’s not difficult to be there when it matters.

The consistent short houses this session particularly have frustrated the authors of proposed constitutional amendments from putting those questions to the people.

Rep. Simone Champagne’s term limits bill for statewide officials, opposed by none of them, remains on the calendar after a 68-25 vote, with 10 not voting. So too for Rep. Eddie Lambert’s measure to have both houses approve a governor’s call for a special session, which fell short 65-26, with 12 non-voters.

Sometimes legislators miss votes because they were over in the Senate coordinating legislation with a counterpart, or in the foyer conferring with a lobbyist, or even a constituent. Or they timely took a walk.

It should be noted that senators can roam the Capitol at will, free from fear of missing a vote, because, unlike in the House, a teenaged aide can do that for them. But that’s another column.

Back in the House, the matter of absentee legislators ultimately could be addressed through the rough justice of opposition research. A common point of attack against political candidates is their spotty record of not voting in past elections. Next time around, some lawmakers should have to answer for not voting after being elected.



▲ Return to Top