• Protecting the Committee System
  
  

Protecting the Committee System 

Is it wise for the remaining eight or so "pro-life" Representatives to vote against a motion to bring SJR 127 to the floor (killing the measure) on the grounds of protecting the committee system?

In recent weeks, thousands of Tennesseans awakened to the urgent need to pass SJR 127, the proposed amendment to Tennessee's constitution that would once again make Tennessee's constitution neutral on the issue of abortion.  They were told the facts:  Six votes in a House Subcommittee had killed the resolution for a fourth time and that it would now take a vote of two-thirds (66) of the Representatives just to get the resolution to the floor for an up or down vote.

In just the two weeks since www.LifePetition.org was launched (an effort by Family Action of Tennessee and Tennessee Eagle Forum) , Tennesseans generated over 125,000 total emails and made countless calls. And well over 3,200 (still counting) people signed our petition urging their Representatives to vote to bring SJR 127 to the floor for a vote.

Those who contacted their Representatives heard many speaking out of both sides of their mouths.  One particularly troubling response some Representatives gave was that they would vote for SJR 127 if it reached the floor for a vote, but they would not vote to bring it to the floor.  For many of those legislators, the overriding reason for not voting to bring the resolution to the floor was that it would circumvent the committee system. This, it was said, would undermine the legislative process.  

While exactly the opposite is true, enough Democrats[i] drank the "grape Kool-aid" on this argument that SJR 127 has still not received a fair up or down floor vote, even though a week ago, we found out that, without any question, at least 55% of our Representatives support having a floor vote (additionally, four expected votes were out with excused absences).   The reason we know that a majority of our Representatives support SJR127 is because on May 1, 2008, 55 out of 95 Representatives voted for a motion by Rep. Bill Dunn that would have brought the Resolution to the floor for a fair up or down vote.

But what is also known is if all those who say they are pro-life and all those who have said they would vote for the resolution if it got to the floor via the committee system were to vote to bring the resolution to the floor, there would be at least 66 votes. And the reason 66 votes is important is because that is the number required to suspend the rules in order to get the resolution to the House floor, given that  it was previously killed by six votes in a House Subcommittee.

The problem then is not a lack of support for SJR 127. The problem is whether it is wise for those remaining eight or so "prolife" Representatives to vote against a motion to bring SJR 127 on the grounds of protecting the committee system.

No doubt having an orderly process for considering legislation is important. No doubt the legislature would grind to a virtual halt if every bill and resolution were considered on the floor.  Using committees to sort through matters before going to the floor is good.

But it is not true that voting to bring SJR 127 to the floor (or any measure for that matter) will destroy the committee system or invite chaos.  Rather, in truth, voting to bring a matter to the floor out of subcommittee can be healthy for the system - it provides accountability.

In a government of checks and balances, the ability to bring a matter straight to the floor provides a "check and balance" against corruption in the committee system.  It provides a corrective when power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few and they are then able to thwart the will of a bipartisan majority of the members.

If House leadership (of whichever party) and committee members know that if they continuously, year-after-year, keep the significant and solid majority of their colleagues from voting on a measure that has bipartisan support, they should know that they can and will be overridden.  And such leadership and committee members should consider the personal political ramifications of being over-ridden in this manner. 

No doubt the bipartisan majority of the House members' desires on SJR 127 have been frustrated - not just once, but four times!  No doubt the votes of the subcommittee do not represent the will of the bipartisan majority of the House.  Voting to bring SJR 127 to the floor actually sends a positive signal that the body, as a whole,  will "correct" the committee system whenever it repeatedly breaks down.   Seven years of thwarting the will of a solid bipartisan majority of the House and the Senate is quite enough to demonstrate this need.

Does this mean that every legislator who has a bill killed in subcommittee will start running to the floor asking his or her colleagues to bring their defeated legislation to the floor?  Of course it doesn't.  To think that is to think that every Representative will see every bill as important as every other.   Representatives know that before wasting their colleagues' time and inviting their wrath, a measure must be one of great importance to the whole body and one that at least a majority would support if they could vote on it.  Furthermore, to think that the House will be overrun with time spent voting on bills that cannot pass is to assume that two-thirds of the House will start routinely voting to bring bills or resolutions to the floor that they then won't vote for.   

If two-thirds of our Representatives vote to bring something to the floor, it is very likely the matter will quickly get the 50% vote needed for its passage.  For a Representative to argue that he or she should never vote to bring a measure to the floor for fear of chaos, must mean that he or she does not have confidence in the rest of the Representative to exercise any restraint.

Lastly, if two-thirds of the Representatives support something and want to vote on it, is it such a bad thing that a supermajority would be in control of the process?  Is it really right that one-third of a representative body should control the two-thirds?  Is it right that, as with SJR 127, six people on a subcommittee control what is clearly a solid bipartisan majority?  I think not.

If a Representative supports SJR 127 on the merits, then voting to bring it to the floor not only is the right thing to do, it helps protect the committee system from continuing, unchecked abuses of power as would appear to be the case with SJR 127.    

Perhaps it is time for the electorate to correct the situation by voting for those who will correct a broken system, not become a part of it.

Thank you for your time.  Please feel free to forward this to your friends.  If you have not yet signed our petition in support of SJR 127, you can still do so by going to:  www.LifePetition.org.

David Fowler

[i] Though SJR 127 did enjoy support from several Democrats, it was only Democrats who made this argument.  All 43 Republicans who were present and not excused voted to bring SJR 127 to the floor.  No Republicans made this argument.