On Locking and Unlocking House Machines
I have observed at least two occasions in the press when House Minority Leader Mike Hubbard (R - Auburn) has said that he asked for the voting machines of some absent Republicans to be locked on the day that the House was discussing HB 274, the proposal from John Knight related to removing the state sales tax off grocery purchases, but that to Hubbard’s surprise the machines were unlocked when Rep. Jack Williams withdrew the request to invoke Rule 32. (I can’t find a news link at the moment with Hubbard’s comments. Rep. Mike Ball mentioned it here, and a commenter mentioned it here.)
I asked the Clerk of the House, Greg Pappas, for some explanation on how and when legislators’ machines are locked to prevent others from voting on them.
Pappas said that when a legislator asks that his or her own machine be locked, that machine is not unlocked until that legislator personally requests it.
Regarding Rule 32 (which says in part, “No member shall vote for another member, except by unanimous consent; nor shall any person not a member cast a vote for a member.”), Mr. Pappas explained that “unanimous consent” is assumed unless someone objects. If there is no objection, members may cast votes on others’ machines, though not on one locked by the legislator who uses it.
What about Rep. Hubbard’s request to lock machines of some of the Republican legislators who were not there, I asked.
Pappas said that he is willing to lock machines at the request of other legislators because such a request is in keeping with Rule 32. The act of asking indicates that there is not unanimous consent to allow members to vote for other members.
Why were they unlocked then? Pappas explained that because the machines were locked in keeping with Rule 32, they were unlocked when Rep. Williams withdrew the request to invoke Rule 32. He added that any legislator could have then stepped forward to invoke Rule 32, but none did. And, for example, Merika Coleman’s machine was not unlocked because she personally had requested that it be locked.
What is the consequence for voting another machines when Rule 32 is in place? According to Pappas, there is no consequence for violating Rule 32, though any member of the House may challenge the vote before the outcome is announced. If a representative looks at the board where votes are recorded next to legislators’ names and believes a vote is unfair or not accurate, that is his or her best option.
Pappas added that a video showing Texas legislators voting others’ machines had caused a public uproar there. Texas may be moving toward using voting machines with fingerprint readers that would allow only the proper legislator to vote the machine. Pappas believed that we might be moving toward that here in Alabama also.
From my perspective that sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Judging from conversations I have had with legislators here, many of them like having someone they trust who will vote their machines. A legislator told me that there are so many votes, and occasionally you need to step outside to greet a constituent or to go to the bathroom. One doesn’t want to give an opponent the opportunity to say, “Rep. So-and-So did not vote 20% of the time,” though the legislator concluded, “if you are going to do what Hinshaw did then it might be best to just stop people from voting other people’s machines altogether.”
I believe it more likely that if legislators wanted to prevent a repeat of Duwayne Bridges’ machine being voted while he was in South Korea, they would address it without involving fingerprint readers. And if a legislator doesn’t want anyone to vote on his or her machine, the solution is already there: lock your own machine.
Tuesday the 22nd, Rep. Duwayne Bridges addressed the House.
I said, ‘No one better not ever touch my machine again. It’s not your machine, so keep your little grimy hands off of it.’ I think I made a strong enough point, and other members applauded me.
The odd thing there is that tough talk is not necessary. The solution, same as before, is to lock his machine.
Related Articles:
I like the idea of a fingerprint reader. Legislators could designate a proxy whose print would also activate the machine.
Comment by PoliticalJunkie — April 28, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
Agree that locking the machine is the cheap and simple solution, but biometric scanners could help with those that “forget” to lock their machines.
the problem of missing votes to tend to other business could also be handled by setting and keeping office hours and the return of the jug, if a brief recess is not forthcoming.
Although, in this age of wonders, why don’t we just let the legislators teleconference and vote from there ?
The major problem as pointed out by others is that the public seems willing to overlook it.
Comment by walt moffett — April 28, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
A good old fashion ass whippin’ would have a more lasting impression on Hinshaw
Comment by JD — April 28, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Other legislators having the ability to vote other’s machine, in and of itself, seems like an incredibly bad idea from the very beginning. I’m sure it’s been out there for a long time, but when I heard of this uproar I just sat there amazed that this was what some called a democratic way of doing things. I’ve always thought a man’s vote was somewhat sacred, and that no one should vote for someone else, unless given specific proxy to do so. I think this even more after this “Mayberry” episode in the Alabama Legislature.
While fingerprints seem a little extreme, would it not be a relative easy thing for legislators to designate who is allowed to vote for them when they are not present? This is not rocket science, and we are a long way from Huntsville, so can’t the machines be setup to allow only the designated proxy parties to vote on a machine when someone must be absent?
We can put a man on the moon, but we can’t devise a way to try and keep the Alabama legislators honest? Imagine that.
Comment by Otis Cat — April 28, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
The real question in all of this is: how in the world does someone representing Chambers County, a county ravaged by mill closings, vote against taking the state sales tax off groceries? Mr. Bridges needs to make a trip to the DHR office in Lafayette (as I recently did) and take a look at the increase in food stamp receipents in his home county in the last few months.
Or maybe he has been talking to Senator Larry Dixon of Montgomery who was quoted in the Montgomery Advertiser on Sunday, April 27 as saying:
“I don’t care what people say about poor people. Poor people get food stamps. That is a $345 million tax increase on the people I represent.
“The Republicans are not going to let it pass.”
(You can scroll down to the Sunday clips on this site and find this quote in the article about the Senate stalemate.)
Comment by LA — April 28, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
Has anyone asked why Jack Williams withdrew his request?
Comment by Blue Dot — April 28, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
Blue Dot,
The Huntsville Times did:
Comment by Danny — April 28, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
My understanding of the rule is that it only applies to legislators voting machines other than their own. If I understand the rule then Jack Williams could vote his own machine for Knight’s bill if he wanted to quid quo pro on taxes. His explanation doesn’t hold water. Everyone just looks the other way because he says that he wanted to “give tax relief to the elderly”?
Comment by Blue Dot — April 29, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
While Hinshaw has been publicly castigated for behavior that should be expected from him as a Hubbert devotee, Jack Williams has escaped calumny. The republican party, if it has any principles to back up its rhetoric, should publicly castigate Jack Williams and investigate his relationship with Randy Brinson (Abramoff $$)for setting the stage (ie providing Hubbert and Hinshaw a green light to bottom feed). Republicans should be outraged at this slight of hand exchequeing by old janus faced Williams. Jack Williams is a disgrace to the republican party, but a rising star to Brinson & Hubbert. I call on Brett Blackledge to put pen to paper and track Jack Williams PAC money for the next year. AEA can launder money like a columbian drug lord, but no lie can live forever. The truth will out and Williams will be exposed as a ‘christian’ hypocrite.
Comment by publius — April 29, 2008 @ 8:52 pm