An odd strategy
Filibusters have been used since the beginning of the republic. I have been involved on both sides of a filibuster.
I have filibustered bills that I opposed. Just three years ago, I was filibustered for 3 weeks on the bill (Disclosure Bill) that I just passed on Thursday by a vote count of 105-0. This does not take into account the 3 week filibuster of the same bill by the Senate 2 years ago. All told, I spent six weeks of my legislative life being filibustered on the Disclosure Bill. So, I am extraordinarily grateful that it finally passed this year in the House. A unanimous vote on any legislation is rare in the House.
There is nothing innately wrong with a filibuster; I think it’s just another use of the rules. I was only subjected to a “slowdown” this year when it came to the Disclosure Bill. A slowdown apparently differs from a filibuster, in that you are not opposing a bill, but protesting an action.
In the beginning of this legislative session, it seems that my Republican friends are slowing down the House due to the make up of House Committees or so I’m told.
After the elections, the Speaker of the House, on behalf of the majority, reduced the number of Republicans on three (3) committees. This was done through rules adopted by the majority during the organizational session. It was, in my opinion, a light slap on the wrist for some very vicious campaign tactics employed by the past, as well as the present, Chairman of the Republican Party. We had elections. They were tough. The winners, the Democratic majority, adopted rules favorable to the majority. I would assume had my friends on the other side won that they would have rewritten the rules to their advantage. It is the political process. However, there are consequences of slowdowns or filibusters. While a slowdown allows us to read more bills, more thoroughly, a consequence of this is that good legislation can be lost. It’s the funnel effect. As the legislative days dwindle and more time is spent “killing” legislative days, less time will be available to consider all bills.
A bill has to be read according to the Constitution three (3) times in the House: (1) Introduced, (2) Reported out of committee, and (3) Passed by the whole legislative body. The process is then repeated in the Senate, a deliberative body whose rules are designed to be slow.. This means a six (6) day minimum on passage of legislation. We can only meet to consider bills for 30 days, per the Constitution. The math speaks for itself. We have already spent 6 days in a slowdown. In the last few weeks of a session, there will be many “good” bills whose sponsors will be competing for a place on the calendar. A filibuster this long and this early has already sealed the fate of hundreds of bills.
How many of these sponsors of bills will people remember were also “the filibusterers” and thereby the killers of their own bills?
A bill can become law in 5 legislative days, not 6.
Comment by Anonymous — March 24, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
Technically correct. Once received by either body it can be read on the same day in each house. I was focusing on a bill having to be read three times in each house within the context of the filibuster. For the 5 day minimum to be achieved it would have to have everyone in agreement. Not impossible so it can and has been done. I stand corrected.
Comment by Rep. Hinshaw — March 25, 2007 @ 8:52 am
I think the Republicans are a little more justified in being upset about the rules changes. The Democrats were in a majority before, so the outcome of the election could be expected to bring no change.
Having said that, I’m not happy about the stall tactics, either. I really want to be able to buy good beer.
Comment by Dan — March 26, 2007 @ 9:19 am
Rep Hinshaw, you assume that if the Republicans had won they would have rewritten the rules to suit themsleves. I have a little more faith that they wouldn’t have effectively disenfranchised the citizens represented by a member of the minority party. I am also pretty confident that no matter how the rules had been rewritten the democrats would be slowing down the work and hollering that it is unfair. I’m also a little troubled by the supposed “retaliation” for campaigns against Democratic incumbents. The campaigns against many Republicans were even more vicious and untrue–The campaign against the house minority leader is a perfect example. Why is it that Democrat incumbents think they should be insulated against having to defend their seats while, at the same time, they feel free to engage in the most vicious campaigns against Republican incumbents?
Comment by Susan — March 26, 2007 @ 10:40 am
Rep. Hinshaw,
How dare you insinuate that any Republican anywhere would EVER do anything wrong. EVERYONE knows that the Republicans would have crafted rules that were fair to everyone and probably would have split committee assignments 50 - 50. I am sure that, upon being the majority party, Mike Hubbard would ask Ken Guin to join hands with him and sing Kum ba yah.
Comment by QEK — March 26, 2007 @ 11:31 am
QEK,
Ken Guin is busy typing memos to the two schools the works for. He doesn’t have time with the 3 or 4 reports a year to sing Kum Ba Ya. He is much too busy figuring out if there is a third school with the “for hire” sign in the window.
Comment by Ben — March 26, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
LOL
Comment by QEK — March 27, 2007 @ 6:19 am
When voters elect people to represent them in the legislature they expect them to, at the very least, act in an adult manner, and not to slap other members in the face like some bully on a grammar school playground in retaliation for something that took place in the elections. When the elections are over it’s time to put that aside and work together to benefit all Alabamians.
Comment by Don — March 27, 2007 @ 9:18 am
Representative Hinshaw, what you say about good bills not being enacted due to the short period of time to deal with them during a legislative session (even without slowdowns or filibustering) sounds to me (as I said to Representative Ward a few days ago in his “Slow Moving So Far”) like a good argument for having a full-time legislature as several states do.
Among several reasons why he said he isn’t in favor of a full-time legislature was: “I do not favor a full-time legislature because there is no way you could get the quality of membership that you would be looking for unless the pay was sufficient.”
Assuming that quality members should lead to a quality legislature, my immediate thought is that all of the state legislatures that are full-time seem to be consistently ranked above our own. In fact, I believe the Alabama Legislature is rated as the poorest of all 50 in the USA.
What would prevent Alabama from having a quality full-time legislature, in your opinion?
Comment by Don — March 27, 2007 @ 9:49 am