that, like any other procedural matter, it’s a motion, followed by a second, followed by a vote, and a majority is needed. It’ll probably be a roll-call in this case.
Hillman has been “in line” to become a Federal Marshal for about 1 1/2 years,Boston Globe which may one of the reasons (Note: another Republican itching to move on) he stepped down from state rep.
Hillman said he decided not to run for reelection last year while seeking a position with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a job that went to another candidate.
To adjourn, you need 101 legislators. To kill it via an up-or-down vote, you need 151, since it only needs 50 “yes” votes to be sent on to the next session.
<
p>
That’s why those who want this thing killed by any available means are backing procedural maneuvers: they don’t think they have the votes to do it by the book (or at least, it’s a lot closer).
ed-prisbysays
Just trying to bottom-line this for myself. The beef is, then, they used 101 legislators to kill it instead of using 151.
<
p>
I’m honestly ambivalent about this. On the one hand, I see your point. It’s bad for democracy to have people do what they need to do to put these things on a ballot, and then have the legislature duck it by adjourning. If the shoe were on the other foot, liberals wouldn’t like it either.
<
p>
On the other hand, you can’t really say it wasn’t put to a vote. In essence, it was. But through a different mechanism. Here, there were two ways to kill the initiative: either by voting on it, or by adjourning. Where adjourning is the easier route, why risk going any other way? The vote to adjourn was basically a vote to kill it by only needing 101 votes. You could argue that it wasn’t any less democratic – just less fair.
ed-prisbysays
I would propose that in the future, the legislature change the rules so that when discussing ballot initiatives on the floor, a motion to adjourn must be approved by the same number of votes that it would take to pass/kill the measure.
<
p>
Because this is a battle of conflicting rules. On the one hand, the public has the “right” to have their proposal voted on, but on the other hand, the legislature is certainly allowed to vote to rescess. They just need to sync up the rules to eliminate the inconsistency.
david says
that, like any other procedural matter, it’s a motion, followed by a second, followed by a vote, and a majority is needed. It’ll probably be a roll-call in this case.
peter-porcupine says
They lock the doors to the Chambers sometimes during budget and roll calls – to keep the legislators in.
<
p>
They usually beg to go to the bathroom, and run away.
david says
Mitt can call in Tom DeLay for advice on how to get the MDC police to round up errant legislators!
peter-porcupine says
heartlanddem says
Hillman has been “in line” to become a Federal Marshal for about 1 1/2 years,Boston Globe which may one of the reasons (Note: another Republican itching to move on) he stepped down from state rep.
Ironically, Hillman’s leadership perspective bombed
Mittens has been about as effective on that public safety issue as he has been (similar speed and acumen) with judicial appointments.
peter-porcupine says
Not EVERYTHING is a philosophical engagement.
ed-prisby says
Are fewer legislators needed to adjourn than would have been needed to kill the ballot question initiative?
david says
To adjourn, you need 101 legislators. To kill it via an up-or-down vote, you need 151, since it only needs 50 “yes” votes to be sent on to the next session.
<
p>
That’s why those who want this thing killed by any available means are backing procedural maneuvers: they don’t think they have the votes to do it by the book (or at least, it’s a lot closer).
ed-prisby says
Just trying to bottom-line this for myself. The beef is, then, they used 101 legislators to kill it instead of using 151.
<
p>
I’m honestly ambivalent about this. On the one hand, I see your point. It’s bad for democracy to have people do what they need to do to put these things on a ballot, and then have the legislature duck it by adjourning. If the shoe were on the other foot, liberals wouldn’t like it either.
<
p>
On the other hand, you can’t really say it wasn’t put to a vote. In essence, it was. But through a different mechanism. Here, there were two ways to kill the initiative: either by voting on it, or by adjourning. Where adjourning is the easier route, why risk going any other way? The vote to adjourn was basically a vote to kill it by only needing 101 votes. You could argue that it wasn’t any less democratic – just less fair.
ed-prisby says
I would propose that in the future, the legislature change the rules so that when discussing ballot initiatives on the floor, a motion to adjourn must be approved by the same number of votes that it would take to pass/kill the measure.
<
p>
Because this is a battle of conflicting rules. On the one hand, the public has the “right” to have their proposal voted on, but on the other hand, the legislature is certainly allowed to vote to rescess. They just need to sync up the rules to eliminate the inconsistency.
peter-porcupine says
And I don’t mean because thy’re Dems – I mean because of overwhelming power.