WGBH’s Rupa Shenoy in “Beacon Hill’s Dysfunction Explained” yesterday made a start at explaining how it came to be that a few people who collectively represent only a sliver of the Commonwealth presume to rule all of us.
Plymouth and Barnstable, Senate President Therese Murray’s district, has a population of 158,894. The Nineteenth Suffolk district, House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s district, has a population of 40,445. Collectively, these two individuals represent about 200,000 people: less then three percent of the Commonwealth’s approximately 6.7 million residents and less than 20 percent, even counting voters and non-voters alike in their districts, of the 1.1 million people who affirmatively marked a ballot for Governor Patrick in 2010.
Peter Ubertaccio, director of the Joseph Martin Institute for Law & Society at Stonehill College in Easton, agrees and says that power has concentrated around the House Speaker and Senate President over the last 30 years. Chairs of legislative committees, meanwhile, have gotten weaker, he said. “Instead of having multiple centers of power in the legislature, we tend to have now two,” Ubertaccio said.
More explicitly:
“I suspect that very frequently from the beginning the fix is in, and that the time that it takes is simply used up with routine attempts to gather information that are never going to yield anything other than the predetermined outcome,” said David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University.
That two individuals who collectively represent less than three percent of the state, and the cabal of committee chairs around them, have this much power makes a mockery of the principle of democratic government. James Madison warned of the problem in Federalist 51:
In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.
America’s traditional solution to monopolies of legislative power has been to vote in the rival political party. Unfortunately, Republican nationwide and in Massachusetts — foreign policies of the 1980s, social policies of the 1950s, and economic policies of the 1920s — have disqualified themselves from leadership consideration.
The best way to restore democratic government in Massachusetts is to revitalize the Democratic Party through a more cohesive and energized Progressive Caucus: the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Naturally, the powers that be will try to resist this effort by plucking off progressive legislators with $15,000 bonuses and other treats (“assistant floor leaders, division chairmen, and a handful of committee chairs, vice chairs, and ranking minority members earn $15,000 each”). That is chump change.
Progressives are strong. With unity, discipline, and determination they can revitalize the Democratic Party in Massachusetts, respond to a dissatisfaction with state government so deep hundreds of thousands even voted for Charlie “Big Dig” Baker in 2010 in the belief that he might restore some balance to state government, and recover our democracy.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
who can direct things. Otherwise one big cluster fuck of egos and bad ideas.
Remember George Keverian? Great guy, bad speaker, worse legislature. Nothing got done, the inmates ran the asylum.
Bob Neer says
That is why I included “discipline” as one of the requirements. If the 43 or whatever there are members of the Progressive Caucus voted as a block we’d have a far more dynamic and accountable state government. Right now they are marginalized and largely disregarded.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Oh I get it. As long as you and your friends control the dominant block?
The whole thing is self-seving.
Besides the today’s legislature is the biggest bunch of lemmings I have ever seen and the biggest lemmings are the self-proclaimed progressives.
jconway says
Care to point to other issues where they were lemmings?
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
n/t
jconway says
But what was the likelihood a more progressive challenger would’ve been successful, and what would the cost of defection have been from a vengeful DeLeo.
I remember back in the day we were always disappointed when Alice Wolfe voted for Finneran, but she argued she would have zero influence in the House had she defected.
It seems there is greater flexibility in the State Senate, and Rosenberg should be a slight improvement on Murray-but we are in agreement DeLeo has got to go at some point. Any inside scoop on how realistic it would be to depose him?
JimC says
An elected representative worried about the “cost of defection” is feckless indeed.
fenway49 says
said DeLeo’s a “moderate” who’s changing the Imperial Speakership to empower other members. Somehow I missed that.
dave-from-hvad says
First, he opened up the legislative process from the autocratic Tommy McGee. I think things have slid backwards since then.
Second, Keverian sacrificed his political career to solve the budget crisis of 1990 by pushing through a billion dollar tax increase in the House. Bill Weld has somehow gotten the credit for solving that crisis, but he actually came to office after the tax increase went through and benefited from it. Weld had to do very little budget cutting as a result.
JimC says
I’ll bet both DeLeo and Murray would have a good laugh over “presume to rule all of us.”
They are both the primary herders of the elected cats. They rule nothing except the chambers, and no one knows it better than them. Someone’s got to keep the cats batting at only ball of yarn at a time.
Christopher says
…does legislation even come up for a vote, let alone pass, without the blessing of the presiding officers?
shillelaghlaw says
How often does legislation even come up for a vote, let alone pass, without the blessing of the presiding officers?
And how often do presiding officers get voted in without the blessing of the legislators?
By getting elected Speaker or President, you’ve already gotten at least fifty percent of your house behind you. Doesn’t seem like much of a stretch that as presiding officer you’ll continue to have fifty percent of the membership in your back pocket on any given issue at any given time.
Christopher says
…the presiding officer’s word is pretty much what goes. Not everybody agrees on absolutely everything, so if I have a bill the Speaker or President doesn’t agree with even if I was one of the ones who voted for that person I’m out of luck. I think every bill proposed should be referred to and heard by the appropriate committee and every bill reported favorably should get a vote.
JimC says
The leaders are only as powerful as the members want them to be.
And to Ernie’s point above, the members want powerful leaders, just because things need to move.
danfromwaltham says
Charlie “Big Dig” Baker? Really? I thought that issue was put to bed last year when I exposed how Deval “Copycat” Patrick used identical funding mechanism for his projects. And even worse,most of Deval’s 13 Billion transportation proposal from last year called for the exact same financing used in the Big Dig. This is called Grant Anticipation Notes, but I am sure most already knew thIs.
Other than that, your post is legit. I do look forward to Terry Murry being replaced by Rep. Vinny DeMacedo.
shillelaghlaw says
“Power has concentrated around the House Speaker and Senate President over the last 30 years.”
That roughly coincides with the reduction in membership in the House from 240 to 160 back in 1978. It’s far easier for a Speaker to corral 81 members than 121.
Another problem with the smaller House is that the districts became larger, and thus it became easier to dilute certain populations. If there were more districts two things would happen. One, there would be more majority-minority districts, since it would be more difficult to create districts that snake out of the urban areas into the suburbs. (Like what Finneran did.) Second, there would be more Republicans, since, again, it would be more difficult to create districts that snake out of the urban areas into the suburbs.
A 240 member House would see a more diverse membership, which would keep the leadership more accountable to the rank-and-file.
Trickle up says
but is it historically accurate? Was the speaker less powerful pre 78?
I’d generally suppose the dynamics of a large body empower leaders at the expense of rank and file, if anything.
wareinmass says
I’d love to see the House back at 240. I am still perplexed as to why the League of Women Voters rallied for that policy back in 1978. I understand their intentions for good government but it seems to be a well intended proposal which failed. A larger House would mean a more powerful voice for both rural and minority communities across the Commonwealth.
merrimackguy says
The current legislature sucks.
The current legislature is almost all one party, and that party runs things 100% of the time.
Therefore one would conclude that party sucks.
SomervilleTom says
Heroin is bad for society.
99% of today’s heroin users drank milk as children.
Therefore one would conclude that milk is bad for society.
Wrong conclusions, about both milk and the Democratic party.
merrimackguy says
and all occurs in real time.
If 99% of current heroin users were also milk drinkers then I would suspect there is a connection.
You guys want to run everything and here in MA you get your chance. Either this article is wrong or it looks like Democrats here in MA are not doing a good job.
stomv says
Truer words have never been written. One would conclude that party sucks. One. You. Nobody else.
merrimackguy says
because there’s nothing to be said except the party in power is not doing a very good job.
The Democrat party motto in MA is the “hey we’re not the Republicans.”
Maybe that’s enough for the voters but a long way from all the idealism that gets tossed around here.
JimC says
… the Legislature sucks. Name a better one. Say why they’re better.
merrimackguy says
It’s presenting the facts and headlining with the word “dysfunctional.” If you don’t think it’s true then the discussion is pointless.
If Mr Neer didn’t think it sucked then why would he propose change? I guess he could be saying it actually is great but could be even better (but I don’t think so).
Here’s what I would like:
Debate so that the public can understand the legislation
Issues being solved by legislative action
Representation by my elected official
If you don’t like those things are important by all means applaud our current legislature, which is controlled by the party most supported here on BMG.
PS I don’t think legislature vs legislature is a good comparison. All states are different, have different forms of representation , and individual histories with their population and legislature.
JimC says
What do you mean by “representation by my elected official?” Did you call someone and not get an answer?
I agree generally with your point about the limitations of comparison, but I don’t know how else to score them.
merrimackguy says
as this article, and the huge percentage that vote in lockstep imply, don’t seem to exercise much independent voting on Beacon Hill. If my rep votes 95% of the time time with the Speaker that implies they might not be thinking about me or my district when they vote. I can make that conclusion because it’s not just my rep- it’s all of them.
jconway says
The Democratic Party in Massachusetts is an hodge podge collection of old school socially conservative, pro-union Dems like Miceli, some retrograde pro-business Dems including Colleen Forry and deLeo who vote in line like Reagan Republicans let alone Democrats, and a good chunk of detritus that rarely gets challenged. There is a new guard of progressive leaders in both houses. I think we have a good chance of keeping the Corner Office in liberal Democratic hands, having a more liberal State Senate President, and gradually getting a more liberal house.
Look at these scorecards and look at all the red eg. bad votes with D’s next to the name. We can make that a sea of blue in time, and start leading like the OR and VT legislatures instead of following.
merrimackguy says
But just like most people here who want to put Charlie Baker and Richard Tisei into the same bucket as Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. I don’t really seem much difference among the Beacon Hill crowd. All are exactly the same to me, and clearly a vote for a Progressive who is just going to turn around and vote with/for DeLeo doesn’t seem to be much different than a vote for Miceli.
Okay so that’s just a bit of a joke. There are some reps, like Diana DiZoglio, who stand out from the crowd.
jconway says
Obviously they are social moderates. But I also feel they are far to Weld-Celluci’s right on economic questions. Particularly since Tisei is running for federal office as an acolyte of Ryanomics.
But the idea that the MA GOP can somehow produce moderate legislation and balance out Beacon Hill has been proven false. Was government more equitable, more efficient, and more responsive to the people than big business during those 19 years? Casinos are a big black mark on Patrick’s legacy and those who voted for it on the blue team. I can’t argue with that. But ‘elect economically conservative Republicans’ is not the solution to the problem of ‘too many corporate Democrats’-elect ‘better Democrats’ seems to be the better one. The Greens have a niche they fail to exploit on that front as well to challenge DINOs when progressives cant or wont.
JimC says
Have you checked your rep’s voting record?
merrimackguy says
My rep is Frank Moran. I compared him with Brian Dempsey, the Speaker’s #1 guy. 100% the same.
http://www.progressivemass.com/progressive_mass_house_roll_call_votes_2013_2014
JimC says
You must be exhausted.
wareinmass says
So is the point of turning the progressive Democrats into a stronger cohesive voting block to make clear contrast between themselves and the lunch-buckets and “old regulahs”? Don’t expect the later group to give up without a fight. I actually support your proposal should it provide for spirited debate and competition between the two groups. For a political system to work competition is necessary and since the Republican brand is no relevant in much of the Commonwealth any longer it would be helpful to have two options. I just hope THAT is your plan, not to cast the later group from the party and have the former group take all the spoils. Because then we sound no different from southern Republicans primarying existing reps and pushing for the most extreme candidates to win in every race.