Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

A unique method of obstruction was employed at the 1915 session of the Illinois Senate, when a strong minority was seeking to prevent the naming of a rules committee until the results of certain contested elections could be known. The scheme, which failed as a matter of course, was to offer amendments to the resolution naming the committee. Notice would then be given that the next day reconsideration would be moved of the vote by which the amendment was lost, which, the minority believed, delayed action upon the main proposition until the amendment was disposed of. The opposing view of the majority was that all ancillary motions are carried by the main motion and that a substitute cannot be used as a method of defeating the main question. Accordingly, the majority finally went ahead and passed the resolution, later overruling the objection of the chair that the original motion was never passed while amendments were pending. The presiding officer was of the minority party and, as every minute was valuable in the race to control the make-up of the rules committee, the majority at the time had no hesitancy in overruling his decision. It was, however, a doubtful parliamentary proceeding as the effect of a motion to reconsider is to suspend the original proposition.33 Alabama alone has guarded by rule against such a situation by providing that a motion to reconsider a subsidiary question cannot remove the main question from consideration but shall be disposed of at the time made.34 It may be pointed out that such a situation could not arise in those states which like Pennsylvania do not admit a notice of reconsideration. It is unreasonable, however, that the will of the majority should be defeated by such paltry means and the speaker would have been justified in ruling such conduct as dilatory. It is sufficient that an opportunity be given later to reconsider the final vote at which time amendments would be open for reconsideration also.

SUSPENSION OF THE RULES

But as has been already indicated the dangers in legislative procedure lie rather in the direction of too little discussion than in the direction of too prolonged debate. No rule is invoked so often as the one which permits dispensing with the rules so that bills may

33 5 Hinds 5704.

34 House Rule 18.

be hurried through in several minutes. Only indeed where the constitutional requirement of readings on several days is absolute can undue haste be avoided; a two-thirds or three-fourths vote to suspend the provision being as easy to secure as a simple majority. Rarely is a division necessary to secure the requisite number, which is usually obtained by unanimous consent.35 Naturally the most frequent suspensions of the rules to expedite legislation involve local and obscure measures, for if any political importance attaches to the bill the minority will see that it takes the normal course. A member announces: "Gentlemen, this is merely a local measure, personal to me and my constituents and I ask to have it put on immediate passage." The house is not interested and is quite willing to act blindly upon the recommendation of the local member.

The usual method of facilitating passage is simply to omit certain of the steps which a bill would normally take. It is not uncommon to advance bills, as they are reported from committee, to third reading subject to amendment and debate. In this manner they escape the customary debate stage, which occurs either at second reading or on the motion to accept the committee's report, and pass finally without discussion. Another method of facilitating passage is to adopt a motion to consider the second reading as the third and pass the bill at once,36 or to order that a measure, reported from committee, be engrossed at the clerk's desk and put on final passage.37

Unfortunately for the public, the confusion of the closing hours is greatly intensified by indiscriminate suspension of the rules. Indeed where constitutional checks do not prevent, bills may be advanced from introduction to final passage in a few seconds. Obviously such proceedings nullify all checks and safeguards.38 In Delaware the Senate will admit a bill on introduction, go into committee of the whole, receive and adopt the report therefrom, read it a third time, and pass it as rapidly as the successive motions can 35 For the constitutional provisions which permit suspension of readings on several days see, Index-Digest of State Constitutions, pp. 840–842.

36 The practice in Washington.

37 Ohio practice. Minnesota also frequently moves a bill from committee report to final passage in one motion.

38 Kansas, North Dakota and West Virginia are the worst offenders. In West Virginia the ayes and noes on the motions to suspend the rules appear on the journals.

be put. Naturally separation of the several stages by several days does not guarantee deliberation or thought, but it does afford an opportunity for them and a chance for anyone who may be interested to be heard, as well as for verification of the official, enrolled copy.

Investigation of the journals reveals that in most legislatures the majority of business of the closing days is done under suspension of the rules. Only bills so favored can secure attention. In the absence of a steering committee suspension of the rules to consider a bill out of its regular order is the house's way of sifting legislation. Bills move from second to third reading and final passage without regard to the regular order and the calendar is thereby rendered futile.39 Michigan and New York have sought to meet the evils of undue haste by the constitutional prescription that all bills be printed and in the possession of members, in Michigan five days before final action,40 and in New York three days in final form, thus rendering snap amendments impossible.41 The rules of the New York Assembly further guard against surprise by the provision that a bill shall be on third reading calendar two days before being taken up unless it has been made a special order, in which case third reading is permitted to follow immediately upon second. Notice of the special order, however, must appear on the calendar two days before consideration.42 Suspension of this procedure is guarded against by the general requirement of one day's notice to suspend any rule.43 Yet it is quite common for a member to secure unanimous consent to put a bill on final passage immediately after the report of a committee. It must be admitted, however, that the situation the last few days is relieved by the fact that the daily program is completely in the hands of the rules committee.

Between a sifting committee easily amenable to the will of the house and the transaction of business under a general suspension of the regular order there is a real choice. The advantage of a prearranged calendar which gives certainty as to what business

39 Minnesota begins this early in the session.

4o Art. 5, Sec. 22.

41 Art. 3, Sec. 15. Of course if the requirement of three readings on separate days is made absolute by the constitution, bills cannot be advanced in whirlwind fashion from introduction.

42 Assembly Rule 12.

43 Assembly Rule 55.

shall come up is wholly with the former. The Senate of New York, which uses a steering committee but little, preserves a semblance of regular order at the end by a rule that all bills must be referred to the committee of the whole before third reading." As the session draws to a close, "General Orders," the calendar of bills before the committee of the whole, is never reached in the day's business. Consequently a measure must depend for advancement upon securing unanimous consent to dispense with the committee of the whole and to order it directly to third reading. The task of objecting to such advancement for any measure is delegated to the majority leader by his party colleagues. The minority group for practical reasons find it to their advantage usually to remain in line and consequently a single man, the majority leader, determines the fate of the bulk of the measures which come up during the last days of the legislature. The grip of the organization is further strengthened by the ruling that motions to discharge the committee of the whole must be made under the order of "Motions and Resolutions," an order seldom reached on the last days. It is therefore impossible for legislation unfavored by the organization to get a hearing. The minority must behave, since it has legislation on which it will ask unanimous consent, and it cannot risk discipline by the majority.

A commendable reform would be to allow motions to discharge the committee of the whole under "Reports of Standing Committees," which is reached early in the day's session. "General Orders" would then no longer serve as a graveyard for bills but rather as a depository for them until withdrawn by the senate using its selective power through its ability to discharge the committee of the whole from those matters which it wished to consider at the late date. A great many measures reported from standing committees on the last few days escape consignment to “General Orders” by gaining unanimous consent to immediate advancement to third reading, there to await their turn on the calendar. If the sponsors are unwilling to have their measure lie on this calendar until it can be taken up in its regular order, they move to suspend the obstructive rules in order that it may be rushed through to final passage. Upon this motion, however, one day's notice is required, and when the motion comes up at a later day members have an opportunity to defeat the rapid progress of the measure. *Senate Rule 18.

The point to be noticed is that by the practice of the New York Senate, few bills are rushed from committee through final passage without due notice to members, and to this extent it is an improvement over the haphazard methods practiced elsewhere. Occasional measures are rushed through by unanimous consent under a general suspension of all rules, but such cases are the exception rather than the rule. Although very autocratic, a more orderly system of selection prevails than in those legislatures which have developed no other sifting agency than business by unanimous

consent.

AMENDMENTS

Notwithstanding how accurately and skilfully a bill may be drafted, ambiguities and inconsistencies may creep in due to the insertion of improper amendments. Accordingly, examination of all amended measures by an expert before they are put up for final vote is much to be desired, yet only a few states provide by rules for such revising process. Colorado, Maine and Massachusetts have committees which revise bills before third reading and are authorized to correct inaccuracies, repetitions and inconsistencies. The actual work of course is done by clerks and everything depends upon the skill and experience of the clerical force. Wisconsin employs a revision clerk in the Senate and a revision committee in the House to examine amendments while the bill is yet in the hands of the standing committee, and an additional committee on bills on third reading is maintained in both houses. The New Jersey House leaves it to the speaker to decide whether amendments shall be submitted to a committee on bill revision to see that they agree with the context. No bill can be reported from a committee in Connecticut until after it has received the approval as to form of the clerk of bills, who is always an official of several years' experience in legislative matters, having reached the position through systematic promotion. The committees on revision in New York and Massachusetts, authorized to examine the grammatical language, correct typographical errors and make the bill accomplish the purpose intended, employ experts for the work. The work of the New York committee is somewhat weakened through their inability to report amendments; they report only recommendations which do not force consideration as amendments would. With the exception of Massachusetts none of the above committees can

« AnteriorContinuar »